On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:02 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: > Thank you for the review! > 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. Thanks - not just for pointing out the issue, but also finding a better version - as suggested, I am changing this (in a git branch where I am collecting updates) to https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/v5.0.1/modules-rfc7706.html - I believe that stability is the most important attribute. AD, please let us know if you disagree. > > Questions: > > 1- It seems that this document replaces RFC7706, but the document states that > it updates RFC7706, is that correct? Oh, good point - once this is published, it does replace 7706 (it is a bis, and contains all of the content from 7706), so Obsoletes is better. Thank you, changed. > > 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? Hmmmm... I think that we missed this because, within the DNS community this is sufficiently well known that we don't even think about / question it. There is quite a lot of research on this, but much if it is behind paywalls - while almost 20 years old now (Gods, I feel old!), I think that the best one to cite is still: https://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2001/DNSMeasRoot/dmr.pdf ( DNS Measurements at a Root Server ) -- I will add this. > > 4- I would expand KSK to Key signing key (KSK). Thanks! Done! > > 5- Should this draft add a reference to rfc8499? Seems like a good idea, thanks! I'm adding: "Readers are expected to be familiar with <xref target="RFC8499"/>." > > Thank you for this document, .... and thank you for the review. W > > Ines. > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
