Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03
review-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03-opsdir-lc-jiang-2015-08-13-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2015-08-11 | |
| Requested | 2015-08-03 | |
| Draft last updated | 2015-08-13 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03 by David Black
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by David Black (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Sheng Jiang (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by David Black (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Sheng Jiang |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03-opsdir-lc-jiang-2015-08-13 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2015-08-13 |
Review
review-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03-opsdir-lc-jiang-2015-08-13
Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This Best Current Practice document provides current definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS. This document is well written. I don't see any issues from the operations and management perspective. It is ready to be published. I have some minor comments as follow: Downref: Normative references to Informational RFCs: RFC 6561, 6781, 6841, 7344. In section 4, class independent, there is a widow term "IN". It is helpful to add an explanation "The CLASS of a record is set to IN (for Internet) for common DNS records involving Internet hostnames, servers, or IP addresses." In section 9, DNSSEC States, "These states are defined in [RFC4033] and [RFC4035], although the two definitions differ a bit." Then, it lists these definitions. It would be very useful if some further comparison could be added. Editorial: In abstract, "The terminology used in by implementers ...", delete "in". In section 4, TTL, 3rd paragraph, "... such as when when the authoritative data ..." delete duplicated "when". Best regards, Sheng