Reviewer: Jari Arkko 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-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-?? Reviewer: Jari Arkko Review Date: 2018-08-29 IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-06 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document was easy to read, and I had no issues to raise. I believe the test that it describes is useful and important for the DNSSEC operational processes in the Internet. I did, however, have one question and one minor issue discussed below, and several editorial observations. Major issues: Minor issues: The document says: If the validating resolver has a forwarding configuration, and uses the CD bit on all forwarded queries, then this resolver is acting in a manner that is identical to a standalone resolver. What does "using the CD bit" mean? Do you expect the bit to be set or not set? Please clarify the language. The document says: nonV: A non-security-aware DNS resolver will respond with an A or AAAA record response for "root-key-sentinel-is-ta", an A record response for "root-key-sentinel-not-ta" and an A or AAAA RRset response for the name that returns "bogus" validation status. I do not understand why an old, non-DNSSEC aware resolver would respond in different ways to the -is-ta and -not-ta queries. But here you say an A record response is returned for -not-ta but A or AAAA RRset response is returned for -is-ta. What am I missing? Nits/editorial comments: Section 3 table lists "A" as responses, while the text talks about "A or RRset response". Perhaps this could be aligned to avoid confusion. Section 4 title is "Sentinel Tests from Hosts with More than One Configured Resolve". Shouldn't that be "... Resolvers"? The document did not clearly specify whether the names queried (including the -is-ta and not-ta label) need to exist in the used domain, or if it is enough for the domain itself to exist. Perhaps this could be clarified.
