Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-04
review-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-04-opsdir-lc-clarke-2018-03-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-04-04
Requested 2018-03-21
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -05 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Joe Clarke
Review review-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-04-opsdir-lc-clarke-2018-03-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/-y9yTibFEs0aadfnCTh5B_RvMaE
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2018-03-26
Review completed: 2018-03-26

Review
review-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-04-opsdir-lc-clarke-2018-03-26

I have been asked to review this document on behalf of the ops directorate.  This document is intended for experimental status, and describes a number of strategies to take when performing EDNS(0) padding.  It recommends one (experimental) option to use based on empirical data.  Overall, I think this document is close to be ready.  In general, coming at it from an operator standpoint, I thought the layout was a bit odd.  The recommended option is spelled out first, but then the document goes into sub-optimal approaches before it actually describes the full recommended solution (both from a query and response stance).  It might flow better to discuss the recommended approach in detail while leaving all of the sub-optimal approaches for appendices.  At the very least, the Maximal Length Padding approach feels somewhat non-sensible and should be pushed to the appendix.

Nit-wise, I found the following:

Section 3:

s/signifcantly/significantly/

s/octects/octets/

===

Section 4.1

You refer to Maximum Length Padding here, but Section 4.2 calls it "Maximal Length Padding".

===

Section 4.2

Is referencing "The Full Monty" needed here?

===

Section 4.3

You expand (pseudo) to (pseudo) random number in Section 4.1.  I think the same should be done here for clarity.

===

Section 4.4

s/transction/transaction/

===

Section 5

When you talk about a multiple of 468 bytes used for response padding, I think you should include a "see below".

===

Section 5

s/octects/octets/

===

Section 5

Where you have "Note that the recommendation above does apply only..." I think it reads better to say, "Note that the recommendation above applies only..."

===

Section 8

s/inffective/ineffective/