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>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2011-06-07 IETF LC End Date:2011-06-09 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This draft does not seem to be quite ready for publication, in that it professes to obsolete RFC 2672, but does not cover all the material from that RFC or explain the absence of the missing material. I also have a few editorial comments that should be considered prior to final publication. Major issues: This draft professes to obsolete RFC2672, but there are multiple sections of that RFC that are not replicated here, nor are their absence explained. I assume, since this draft obsoletes RFC2672, it is expected to completely replace it where an implementor would no longer be expected to read 2672. -- section 4.2 of RFC2672, "Processing by Resolvers", is not replicated here, or if it is, it's in a substantially different form. -- section 5, "examples of use" is not replicated here. Similar examples are mentioned in the introduction, but the detail is removed. None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- IDNits has some comments, please check. -- Abstract: "This is a revision of the original specification in RFC 2672, also aligning RFC 3363 and RFC 4294 with this revision." The heading says this obsoletes 2672 and updates the other two. It's probably worth explicitly using those words here. -- 3.1, 1st paragraph: "Relevant includes the following cases:" Awkward sentence. Maybe "Relevant cases include the following:"? -- 3.1, 5th paragraph: "is synthesized and included in the answer section" What synthesized it? The server? (passive voice obscures responsibility) -- ... "The DNAME has an RRSIG" A _signed_ DNAME has an RRSIG, right? -- 4, 4th paragraph: "...should be revised..." This document actually executes the revision, right? Better to say "this document revises..." rather than "should be revised" -- ..., 7th paragraph: "...replaced with the word "DELETED"." Won't that just leave the word "deleted" hanging on page without explanation? Wouldn't it be better to just simply delete it? _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf