| Robert:
IANA follows the rules to make these assignments.
So both of these options are created by that particular draft which is becoming an RFC.
- Bernie On Feb 21, 2023, at 9:49 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/20/23 12:42 AM, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:Hi Robert,
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Envoyé : vendredi 17 février 2023 21:30
À : gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns.all@xxxxxxxx; last-
call@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx
Objet : Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-
encrypted-dns-09
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Issues
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
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2023-02-17
IETF LC End Date: 2023-02-23
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: After addressing an issue, this will be ready for
publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
Issue: draft-ietf-add-dnr needs to be a normative reference, or
some other mechanic needs to be used to ensure draft-ietf-add-dnr
is published as an RFC before IANA follows the instructions in
this document.
[Med] 142/166 are permanent assignments. The IANA registry is authoritative here.
Ok, digging into the registries, I see 144 for OPTION_V6_DNR and 162 for OPTION_V4_DNR. Is that what you meant? If not, what are 142/166 pointing to?That these are already in the registries addresses the issue I raised, but please remind me how to find the artifacts that _put_ these points in the registry? I assume something triggered early permanent assignments for these? I wonder if those should be more transparently tracked.
Please note that we have the following to make sure that the registry is in sync vs. DHCP and have this note for IANA:
The initial content of this sub-registry is listed in Table 4. The
Value and Description fields echo those of [DHCPv6].
Changes to the entry in the dhcp options registry will be automatically reflected in the registry defined by this document.
Nit: The discussion in paragraph 3 of section 3 and the note that
follows are currently ambiguous. When it calls out that 2865
limits the size of DHCP options and that 7499 and 7930 relaxes the
limit, is it only trying to inform where the recommendation of
supporting 65535 bytes came from? Or is it trying to constrain the
size of any DHCP option added to the the attributes defined here
to 4096?
[Med] Alan already clarified this one. Please let us know if any text tweak is needed.
Yes, I do think the document would be improved if it more directly stated what Alan said in his earlier response.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
