Zaheduzzaman Sarker 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No objection from transport layer specific issues, however, this was not a easy read for me. It often convolutes process steps with practice, issues and recommendations, hence hard to follow. I strongly support Paul's discuss points. I have following comments/questions and I believe the document will be enriched if those are addressed: - Abstract : it says - This document details concerns about how Internet of Things devices use IP addresses and DNS names. I am with the impression that these concerns are not for the entire community of IoT devices, rather for those uses MUD and wanted to use DNS. Also detailing only concerns does not seem the entire goal of this document. Why does the document start with such statement? - Please define "antipattern" in this document. I understand it comes from an external source, any day that definition can change and the usage of "antipattern" in this document may become out of context. It is better to agree on what the "antipattern" means in the context of this document. - Section 1 : This references to sections to describe particular things and that reference does not map to the section numbers of this document. I think there is not need to such calling out of sections in the introduction, it is confusing. - Section 1 : The third section of this document details how current trends in DNS resolution such as public DNS servers, DNS over TLS (DoT), DNS over QUIC (DoQ), and DNS over HTTPS (DoH) cause problems for the strategies employed. Where can I find the promised details? DoQ is only mentioned once in later sections. - Section 6: - Please explain the geofenced name before providing recommendations for it. - How should the manufacturers interpret "strong recommendation" ? Is there any particular reason not to use normative text here? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
