I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, 
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Document:                                   
draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10
Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg
Review Date:                               13 June 2015
IETF LC End Date:                       23 June 2015
IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A
Summary:         The document is well written, but I have some editorial 
comments that I'd like the authors to address.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
Editorial Issues:

General
----------

QG_1:

In the document text, you sometimes say "Negative Trust Anchor" and sometimes 
"NTA". I would suggest to say "Negative Trust Anchor (NTA)" on the first 
occurrence (in the Abstract and the Introduction), and then "NTA". In section 
titles you can use "Negative Trust Anchor", though, if you want.


Abstract
-----------

QA_1:

The abstract text should be more clear about what the draft does. I suggest to 
re-write the last sentence, and begin the sentence with "This document 
defines...", similar to the Introduction.


Introduction:
-----------------

QI_1:

I suggest switching order of the first and second paragraph. It's good to begin 
with the background and justification, and then describe what the document does.

Q1_2:

It is really difficult to understand what a Negative Trust Anchor is when 
reading section 1. In section 1.1 you talk about Trust Anchors, but if a 
Negative Trust Anchor is related to a Trust Anchor I think it would be good to 
mention that already in section 1. Then, in section 1.1, you can focus on the 
differences between a Trust Anchor and a Negative Trust Anchor.

Q1_3:

I assume sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 contain the motivation? If so, I think it 
should be more clear.

Q1_4:

The section titles of 1.3 and 1.4 seem half-finished. Reaction to what? Not 
recommended by whom?


Section 2:
------------

Q2_1:

I wonder whether the two last paragraphs belong to an "Applicability" section?

Q2_2:

The text starts by talking about failure and breakage, but it's unclear what 
failure/breakage. If that is described elsewhere, please provide a reference.


Section 8:
------------

Q8_1: I suggest to remove the "Other considerations" section title, and define 
separate main sections for the Security, Privacy and IANA considerations.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to