Subject: [Gen-art] (no) review of draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-08.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:25:20 +0100

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-08.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2009-12-10
IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-17
IESG Telechat date: 2009-12-17

Summary: Not Ready (new version to come)

Major issues: in fact it is clear from the dnsext WG mailing list
discussion there should be a new version with major differences,
so I'll wait for it.

Nits/editorial comments:
This is both an editorial comment and a major issue: the document is
incredibly verbose so far too long (i.e., two/three times longer as
it should be).

IMHO the issue is the document tries to justify design choices but
it makes no sense: the only argument which stands is the described
protocol is already a defacto standard, so it should *never* justify
something, and at the opposite any discussion about a detail is
already closed (for instance I don't like the unicode labels vs. IDN,
but the protocol uses unicode labels and I have to live with them :-).

So I strongly suggest to remove anything which is not a specification,
the goal should be to get at least a keyword per statement after the
introduction. And don't forget the "any other LC comments" as this
time it is not for the form...

Regards

[email-masked]