Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa-15

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Erik,

Thank you for your review. Responses inline.

Thanks,
David


On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:38 PM Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip] 
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)?

I was also an author on RFC 8305 and IPR claim 3077, but I am not a lawyer.
Speaking as an individual, I am not aware of any IPR related to
draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa-15.
Apologies for the disclaimer, but if you're trying to ascertain whether a
specification is covered by a patent, I would suggest contacting a lawyer.

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:

I have a PR that attempts to address these editorial comments here:
https://github.com/StuartCheshire/draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa/pull/1/files
 
[ abstract ]
* 3rd para could be removed for brevity (but keep same in the intro)

Done 

[ 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/

Done 

* s/is is/it is/

Done
 
[ 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.

I'm not sure how to act on this comment. Can you suggest text?
 
[ 8.1 ]
Consider referring to RFC 8499 for DNS terminology, if that improves
the descriptions of types of resolvers.

Added a reference to 8499. 
-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux