Reviewer: Erik Kline Review result: Ready with Nits 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-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa-?? Reviewer: Erik Kline Review Date: 2020-02-17 IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-17 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Are any of the recommendations for client resolvers in this document covered the IPR (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3077/) claimed for: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8305#section-7 (which has some similar/related recommendations, especially 7.3)? Otherwise, I think this is basically ready, with just a few random nits noted below (and ignoring the jeremiad-esque tone about the design/implications of the middlebox protocol nature of RFC 7050 ;-). Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: [ abstract ] * 3rd para could be removed for brevity (but keep same in the intro) [ 4.1 ] * Consider whether to including references to 1.1, 8.8, and 9.9 services. I think the following might suffice: 1.1.1.1 https://1.1.1.1 8.8.8.8 https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/ 9.9.9.9 https://quad9.net/ * s/is is/it is/ [ 6 ] I'm not sure I follow the logic about whether/why ipv4only.arpa must not be a signed zone. It seems to me that the concluding paragraph beginning with 'Consequently, ...' actually lays out the rationale in the most straightforward manner in this section. It's a nice TL;DR, but I'm not sure how to formulate a useful recommendation for reflowing text to better highlight this. [ 8.1 ] Consider referring to RFC 8499 for DNS terminology, if that improves the descriptions of types of resolvers. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
