Section 9 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-dnr/13/ does indeed request those assignments. And given that RFC-editor is working on converting this into an RFC, IANA must make the assignments for the RFC to be published.
- Bernie (from iPad) On Feb 21, 2023, at 10:54 AM, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Robert, Thanks for the follow-up. Bernie has provided the context for 162/144 codes. For your second comment, a first attempt to tweak the text can be seen at: https://tinyurl.com/opsawg-add-latest. This may be tweaked a little bit for better readability. Cheers,Med-----Message d'origine-----
De : last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> De la part de Robert
Sparks
Envoyé : mardi 21 février 2023 15:49
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx>;
gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns.all@xxxxxxxx; last-
call@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-
opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent doncpas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signalera 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.
|
