Thanks for the review, Ines.
Barry
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:02 AM Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Ines Robles
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-ietf-dnsop-7706bis-07
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2020-02-28
IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-28
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
The document is well written, it supplies appendixes with examples.
This document describes a method for the operator of a recursive resolver to
have a complete root zone locally, and to hide queries for the root zone from
outsiders, at the cost of adding some operational fragility for the operator.
I have some minor questions.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None.
Nits/editorial comments:
1- Appendix B.5: it seems that the link is not valid: <https://knot-
resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/modules.html#root-on-loopback-rfc-
7706>
This link worked for me:
https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/modules-rfc7706.html.
Questions:
1- It seems that this document replaces RFC7706, but the document states that
it updates RFC7706, is that correct?
2- Abstract: "The cost of adding some operational fragility for the operator",
Does it introduce security considerations that have to be mentioned?
3- Section 1: "Research shows that the vast majority of queries going to the
root are for names that do not exist in the
root zone." - Do you have some references to that research that can be added
to the draft?
4- I would expand KSK to Key signing key (KSK).
5- Should this draft add a reference to rfc8499?
Thank you for this document,
Ines.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
