Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-02-12
Requested 2020-01-29
Authors Christian Huitema, Daniel Kaiser
Draft last updated 2020-02-07
Completed reviews Iotdir Last Call review of -04 by Samita Chakrabarti (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -04 by Bob Halley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04-secdir-lc-sparks-2020-02-07
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-02-07


This is a combined genart and secdir last-call review.
Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2020-02-07
IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-12
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready (but with nits) for publication as an Informational RFC

This document provides a set of high-level requirements for a DNS-SD
privacy exptension, and discussion motivating those requirements.

It might be good to call out in the discussion that while it is intended
to be thorough, it's not possible to be exhaustive.

Nits (editorial, in document order):

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction is complex.
Consider breaking it apart.

In the introduction at "When analyzing these scenarios in Section 3.2",
did you mean Section 3.1?

In the first sentence of 3.2 at "the scenarios in Section 2", did you
mean Section 3.1?

At the first sentence in 3.4.4, at "online" did you mean "on-link"?

The statement in the second paragraph of section 4 is perhaps too strong.
Consider changing "will lead" to "are intended to lead".

The item numbering in sections 4.1 and 4.2 are messsed up.

The intent of the next to last paragraph in 4.1 and the last paragraph in 4.2
could be made more clear. I suggest something like: "When listing and resolving
services in current DNS-SD deployments".