Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10
review-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-06-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-06-23
Requested 2015-06-11
Draft last updated 2015-06-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-06-13
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2015-06-13

Review
review-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-06-13






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>




Document:                                  


draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10




Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg




Review Date:                               13 June 2015




IETF LC End Date:                       23 June 2015




IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A




Summary:         The document is well written, but I have some editorial comments that I’d like the authors to address.                           





Major Issues: None




Minor Issues: None




Editorial Issues:




 




General




----------




 




QG_1:




 




In the document text, you sometimes say “Negative Trust Anchor” and sometimes “NTA”. I would suggest to say “Negative Trust Anchor (NTA)” on the first occurrence (in the Abstract and the Introduction), and then “NTA”. In section titles
 you can use “Negative Trust Anchor”, though, if you want.




 




 




Abstract




-----------




 




QA_1:




 




The abstract text should be more clear about what the draft does. I suggest to re-write the last sentence, and begin the sentence with “This document defines…”, similar to the Introduction.




 




 




Introduction:




-----------------




 




QI_1:




 




I suggest switching order of the first and second paragraph. It’s good to begin with the background and justification, and then describe what the document does.




 




Q1_2:




 




It is really difficult to understand what a Negative Trust Anchor is when reading section 1. In section 1.1 you talk about Trust Anchors, but if a Negative Trust Anchor is related to a Trust Anchor I think it would be good to mention that
 already in section 1. Then, in section 1.1, you can focus on the differences between a Trust Anchor and a Negative Trust Anchor.




 




Q1_3:




 




I assume sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 contain the motivation? If so, I think it should be more clear.




 




Q1_4:




 




The section titles of 1.3 and 1.4 seem half-finished. Reaction to what? Not recommended by whom?




 




 




Section 2:




------------




 




Q2_1:




 




I wonder whether the two last paragraphs belong to an “Applicability” section?




 




Q2_2:




 




The text starts by talking about failure and breakage, but it’s unclear what failure/breakage. If that is described elsewhere, please provide a reference.




 




 




Section 8:




------------




 




Q8_1: I suggest to remove the “Other considerations” section title, and define separate main sections for the Security, Privacy and IANA considerations.