Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Paul's DISCUSS position and many of his comments. I understand why this is seeking BCP status, but I think it's unusual for something claiming to be "Considerations" to seek that status. I think this is more suited to Informational. Please expand "ECH" on first use. If Section 3.1 describes a "failing strategy", why is it only NOT RECOMMENDED? In Section 3.2, what is a "physical ACL"? Also, Section 3.2 seems to use a lot of space describing the benefits of DNS caching, TTLs, etc. Someone with a moderate understanding of DNS would already get all of this. I think it could use some editing down. Section 4.1: I think "inprotocol" should be "in-protocol", although I don't know if that's a word either. I would use neither; it's fine without. Also in Section 4.1, the final paragraph (or at least its first sentence) seems a bit mangled. The title of Section 6.1 doesn't appear (to me) to match what it says. For Section 6.4, can we define "geofenced" or provide a reference? This is the first time that term is used in this document. For a BCP, Section 6.5 feels mushy. It says the best practice is (thing), but then buffers it with SHOULDs. I think you should say what the best practice is and stop. If someone elects to deviate, then they're not doing what the best practice is. === >From Orie Steele, incoming ART Area Director: In 4.2. Use of non-deterministic DNS names in-protocol > Within that control protocol references are made to additional content at other URLs. The values of those URLs do not fit any easily described pattern and may point at arbitrary names. Seems to rely on RFC9238 to define what constitutes a well formed URL, which in turn references RFC3986 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986#section-7.1 I believe this imposes some interoperability considerations regarding IDNA. Some comments or guidance on what international domain names and URLs are acceptable might be useful, please consider a reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5895 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
