Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-12

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:45:40 +0000

Jean,

thank you so much for the thoughtful review! I balloted no objection. Thanks authors for addressing Jean’s comments.

Francesca
________________________________
From: art <[email-masked]> on behalf of Jean Mahoney via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, September 4, 2021 2:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-12

Reviewer: Jean Mahoney
Review result: Ready with Nits

Reviewer: Jean Mahoney
Review result: Ready with nits

A well-written, easy-to-read document.  Love Appendix A!

Question about Appendix A.2 and Updates - Should this document also update RFC
1536?

Current text in A.2:
   The informational document [RFC1536] states UDP is the "chosen
   protocol for communication though TCP is used for zone transfers."
   That statement should now be considered in its historical context and
   is no longer a proper reflection of modern expectations.

Nits:

General - Document status (Informational, Standards Track, etc.) should be
capitalized, and Standards Track is not hyphenated (There's just one instance
of hyphenation).

Section 2.4 - 35%of / 35% of

Section 3 - transport.[TDNS] / transport [TDNS].

Section 5.1
   Current: "the steady-state of lost resources as a result is a 'DNS wedgie'."
   Perhaps: "the steady state of the resulting lost resources is a 'DNS
   wedgie'."

Section 5.2 - Expand the acronym KSK.

Section 7 - The Acknowledgments section should be located just above the
Authors' Addresses section. It looks like the names are supposed to be in
alphabetical order, but they aren't quite.

Section 9 - fragmenetation / fragmentation

Section 10 -  Since DNS over UDP and TCP use  / Since DNS over UDP and TCP uses

Section 11.2 - [ROLL_YOU_ROOT] has a mangled author name and a TBD.

Appendix A - The construction "The [RFCNNNN] document..." (in A.3, A.4, A.5,
A.7, and A.13) reads oddly to me. Perhaps "This document [RFCNNNN] ".

Appendix A.8 - The verb tenses are mixed in this section.

Appendix A.32 - as a a / as a

There are other nits I could pick more easily if this doc was in a GitHub repo.
They can be left to the RPC to clean up. :-)

Thanks!
Jean

_______________________________________________
art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art