Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-08-24
Requested 2018-08-10
Authors Tommy Pauly, Paul Wouters
Draft last updated 2018-08-16
Completed reviews Opsdir Telechat review of -16 by Tim Chown (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Stefan Santesson (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-12-genart-lc-holmberg-2018-08-16
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-08-16


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-12
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2018-08-16
IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-24
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I have a couple of questions that I would like the authors to address.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:


Section 3.1 contains some SHOULD-do statements, e.g.,:

"the initiator SHOULD also include one or more INTERNAL_IP4_DNS and INTERNAL_IP6_DNS attributes in the CFG_REQUEST"

"the initiator SHOULD also include one or more INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes in the CFG_REQUEST."

Is there a reason for not using MUST instead of SHOULD?


Section 3.2 says:

"the initiator SHOULD behave as if Split DNS configurations are not supported by the server."

Again, is there a reason for not using MUST?

Nits/editorial comments:


Is there a need for the "Background" section? Since the text is related to what is described in the "Introduction", could the the text be moved there?