dnsdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-01, "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF Specifications" Reviewer: Johan Stenstam Date: January 2026 SUMMARY The document provides guidelines for considering operations and management in IETF specifications. From a DNS perspective, the document does not have very much to say, but what is there are appropriate references DNS as an infrastructure application that may be impacted by new protocols, including DNS-related examples. There are several editorial issues that I think ought to be addressed before publication, but they should all be simple to fix. DNS-RELATED CONTENT 1. DNS References. There are four references to DNS in the draft: a) Line 698 - Infrastructure Impact Consideration "Protocol Designers should consider also the impact on infrastructure applications like DNS [RFC1034], the registries, or the size of routing tables." To me this is appropriate and well-placed in Section 4.5 (Impact on Network Operation). The reference to RFC 1034 is correct. b) Lines 705-707 - DNS Example in Operational Context "For example, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) [RFC5321] servers use a reverse DNS lookup to filter out incoming connection requests: when Berkeley installed a new spam filter, their mail server stopped functioning because of overload of the DNS cache resolver." This is a good example. c) Line 421 - DNS over CoAP as Example The document references DNS over CoAP (DoC) as an example of a specification with adequate operational considerations documentation: "[I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap], [I-D.ietf-suit-mti], [I-D.ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis] [RFC7574], [RFC9877], and [RFC9552]." While this is appropriate, it would be even more helpful if the document explained why DNS over CoAP serves as a good example of operational considerations. d) Lines 1811-1816 - Reference Entry The document includes a correct full reference for DNS over CoAP. 2. DNS-Related Options. When I started to read this document there were several DNS-related issues that I thought that I might find, but didn't. I'm not suggesting that these must be addressed, only listing them as food-for-thought in case the editors think that "DNS Issues" may warrant a more thorough discussion in the document: - Adding guidance on considering DNS query patterns and load when designing protocols that may generate DNS lookups - Mentioning DNS caching implications when protocols generate frequent DNS queries - Considering DNS security (DNSSEC) implications for protocols that rely on DNS for service discovery or configuration - Addressing DNS privacy considerations (e.g., DNS over HTTPS, DNS over TLS) when protocols expose DNS query patterns Again, these are suggestions for possible enhancement rather than required changes, as the document is already appropriately scoped. EDITORIAL NITS The following editorial nits should be addressed: 1. Line 160 - Capitalization Location: Section 1, Introduction Current text: "Section 2.14 of RFC 2360 [BCP22] on Guide for Internet Standards Writers. to obsolete references to mandatory MIBs..." Nit: The sentence that starts with a lowercase "to" suggests a sentence break or missing capitalization. The text makes sense, so I don't think there is any missing content. Suggested fix: "Section 2.14 of RFC 2360 [BCP22] on Guide for Internet Standards Writers, to obsolete references to mandatory MIBs..." OR "Section 2.14 of RFC 2360 [BCP22] on Guide for Internet Standards Writers. To obsolete references to mandatory MIBs..." 2. Line 876 - Typo Location: Section 5, paragraph discussing service management Current text: "A service might be network and operational functionality derived from the implementation and deployment of a New Protocol or Protocol Exension." Nit: "Exension" --> "Extension" 3. Line 2142 - Formatting Location: Appendix A, Operational Considerations Checklist Current text: "The decision to incorporate all or part of these items into their work remains with Protocol Designers and WGs themselves. ## Documentation Requirements" Nit: "##" seems misplaced. My guess is that this is intended as a section separator or header marker. 4. Line 1280 - Incomplete Sentence Location: Section 5.5, Configuration Management Current text: "Is the attachment between them configured compatibly on both ends? Is the IS-IS metric the same? ... Now answer those questions for 1,000 devices." Nit: It is not clear to me whether the ellipsis ("...") is placeholder for missing text or the intended editorial format. I suggest rephrasing to make this clear. OVERALL ASSESSMENT From a DNS perspective, this document appropriately recognizes DNS as a critical infrastructure component and includes relevant examples. The DNS references are accurate and well-placed. The document would benefit from addressing the editorial issues identified above before publication. The document serves its intended purpose of providing guidelines for considering operations and management in IETF specifications, and hopefully DNS operators will benefit from Protocol Designers in the future following these guidelines when designing protocols that interact with or impact DNS infrastructure. Regards, Johan Stenstam