Subject: [DNSOP] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 08:24:05 -0800

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Dale Worley for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ctABeNgyI1ywOHNXs17ZO07rLFY).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
License".

"Table of Contents", paragraph 2, nit:
> iding transient connections to a sub-optimal default server, negotiating a pr
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
This word is normally spelled as one.

Section 2.4.2. , paragraph 10, nit:
> its SvcParams all comply with each others' requirements. Zone-file implement
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Did you mean "other's"?

Section 3.2. , paragraph 2, nit:
> ons. 4.2. Recursive resolvers Whether or not the recursive resolver is aware
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider shortening this phrase to just "Whether". It is correct though if you
mean "regardless of whether".

Section 9.1. , paragraph 5, nit:
> o alt3.example:9443 * Fallback to the the client's non-Alt-Svc connection beh
>                                   ^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Section 9.3. , paragraph 2, nit:
> rtext HTTP. If this redirection would result in a loss of functionality (e.g
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider removing "would". (Usually, "would" does not occur in a conditional
clause, unless to make a request or give a polite order.).

Section 12. , paragraph 3, nit:
> his registry are subject to a First Come First Served registration policy ([
>                                     ^^^^
It seems that a comma is missing.

"D.2. ", paragraph 14, nit:
> fy the IANA instructions (pure First Come First Served) - Recommend against
>                                      ^^^^
It seems that a comma is missing.

Document references draft-ietf-tls-esni-13, but -14 is the latest available
revision.

---

From: Ben Schwartz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:49:46 -0500

Thanks!  Tracked at https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/issues/363

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:24 AM Lars Eggert via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/