Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16
review-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16-dnsdir-lc-obser-2024-09-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2024-10-08
Requested 2024-09-24
Authors Jürgen Schönwälder
I-D last updated 2025-06-30 (Latest revision 2025-06-23)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -16 by Martin Björklund (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -16 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -16 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -16 by Florian Obser (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -16 by Russ Housley (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -16 by Bron Gondwana (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -17 by Florian Obser (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -17 by Bron Gondwana (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Antoine Fressancourt (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Florian Obser
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/-mQJPhjEjEjrOiePk0uVARs3c9Y
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready
Completed 2024-09-30
review-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16-dnsdir-lc-obser-2024-09-30-00
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the ADs.
For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir

Changes relevant to the DNS are the introduction of a host-name type
and using that type in the definition of the host type. Both changes
are useful. In RFC 6991 the host type is too wide and domain-name type
has some hand-wavy text about host names having stricter requirements
than domain names.

Strictly speaking the domain-name type does not fully capture what is
currently understood to be a domain name in the DNS, but the
description of the type acknowledges this: "The pattern above is
intended to allow for current practice in domain name use, and some
possible future expansion." This seems sensible for a YANG type.

An informative reference to RFC 9499 - DNS Terminology would be
useful.

I'm marking the draft "ready" from a dnsdir point of view.