Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Benjamin's DISCUSS regarding a treatment of the privacy issues related to this capture format. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- id-nits reports: ** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 9 characters in excess of 72. -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too? (See https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ for more information about the second issue) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §5: > o CBOR is an IETF standard and familiar to IETF participants. It is While CBOR is standards-track, it's nowhere near standard yet. Suggest: "...is an IETF specification..." (See BCP 9) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §9.1: > DNS style name compression is used on the individual names within the Nit: "DNS-style" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A: > file-type-id : tstr .regexp "C-DNS", I'm far from a CDDL expert, but I just read through that specification, and it seems to me that this is a bit overwrought. I think you can accomplish the same with the much simpler production: file-type-id : "C-DNS", Similarly: > major-format-version => uint .eq 1, > minor-format-version => uint .eq 0, would seem to mean the same as the simpler: > major-format-version => 1, > minor-format-version => 0, --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix B: > The next name added is bar.com. This is matched against example.com. bar.com is allocated to a private individual who has already had to contend with a lot of unwanted traffic (see https://www.bar.com/ for details). We should consider not making things worse for them. Please use an RFC 2606 address instead. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
