Hi Peter, Thanks for the comments, see below. On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Peter Yee <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > comment. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > > (Actually, I'm tardy on this review. It inexplicably dropped off my radar. > So deal with these comments when you get around to handling Telechat input > or AUTH48 or whenever it suits you! I'm still posting this review as it > will be needed come the Telechat.) I don't think it has been scheduled for a Telechat yet so we might as well resolve these comments now. > Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-08 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: December 24, 2015 > IETF LC End Date: December 14, 2015 > IESG Telechat date: TBD > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be fixed before publication. [Ready with nits] > > The draft provides a lightweight means to increase the difficulty of certain > DNS attacks by off-path attackers, but it isn't designed to be the be all > and end all of DNS security. It can be deployed incrementally. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > Page 14, Section 5.2.4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: It might be useful to > mention what the examination entails as it would help in understanding the > 3rd sentence in the paragraph. There's an implied recalculation of the > Server Cookie value based on the received Client Cookie and client IP > address as opposed to a simple lookup of the received value. I'm not so sure of that. If the server wanted to, it could generate a random Server Cookie for each {Client Cookie, Client IP} and, in fact, do a look up. > Nits: > > Page 12, Section 5.2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "the the" to just > "the". OK. > Page 13, Section 5.2.2, 2nd paragraph: append "bytes" after "40". Why after 40 but not after 8 or 16? Seems like me it would be an improvement to add "bytes" after all three. > Page 14, Section 5.2.4, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the sentence. > It's redundant with the 1st sentence. OK. > Page 15, Section 5.4, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change first "a" to "an". OK. > Page 15, Section 5.4, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: change first "a" to "an". OK. > Page 17, Section 6, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "indefinitely" to > "indefinite". OK. > Page 21, Section 9, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "WPAv2" to "WPA2" > (the Wi-Fi Alliance's term). OK. > Page 23, Section 10: change "a" to "an". OK. > Page 27, Section A.1, 1st sentence: change "An" to "A". OK. > Page 29, 1st partial sentence: if you're going to drop beta earlier in the > section, you might as well give the BIND version number here as well. It's > no longer apparent that a beta version was involved. OK. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx