Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2023-08-08
Requested 2023-07-25
Authors Kyzer R. Davis , Brad Peabody , P. Leach
I-D last updated 2023-07-26
Completed reviews Artart Last Call review of -09 by Marco Tiloca (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -08 by Florian Obser (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -09 by Florian Obser (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -10 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -10 by Geoff Huston (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -11 by Geoff Huston (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Florian Obser
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2023-07-26
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the ADs.
For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see

This document reference the DNS as one of multiple possible name
spaces for Name-Based UUID Generation. It has no considerations that
reflect on the DNS.


The document does not reference any DNS RFCs.

Section 5.3, 5.5 and 6.5 refer to "a canonical sequence of octets in
network byte order". It is not specified what that canonical sequence
is nor is there a reference to a document that specifies the canonical
sequence for any of the name spaces.

Section 6.5 also has this:
   *  UUIDs generated at different times from the same name in the same
      namespace MUST be equal.

It is unclear to me how to implement that MUST if there is not a
single canonical sequence specified for a given name space, as is the
case for DNS.

For DNS RFC 8499 has this:
      Format of names: Names in the global DNS are domain names.  There
      are three formats: wire format, presentation format, and common

The test vectors in Appendix C use the common display format, i.e. they
leave off the root label and the "." before it.

I'm not sure how best to address this issue, options include:
- refer to specifications for all the name spaces and point at the
  canonical sequence (in case of DNS this means RFC 8499 and choosing
  common display)
- mark it out of scope, like is done for "uniqueness within their name
- mark it out of scope, but point out that applications must (MUST?)
  agree on what the canonical sequence is.


4.  UUID Format
old: the version bits described in the next sections in determine
new: the version bits described in the next sections determine

6.5.  Name-Based UUID Generation
old: but the hashspace should be used to as the starting point
new: but the hashspace should be used as the starting point