ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-ddr

ARTART review

Closed this issue · 1 comments

Minor issues

Why the following isn't a MUST NOT?

Clients SHOULD NOT automatically use a Designated
Resolver without some sort of validation, such as the two methods
defined in this document or a future mechanism.

--

This bit is puzzling:

A client MUST NOT use a Designated Resolver designated by one
Unencrypted Resolver in place of another Unencrypted Resolver.

There seems to be some context missing to explain why a client should
found itself in that position. What I seem to understand from the text
that follows:

As these are known only by IP address, this means each unique IP
address used for unencrypted DNS requires its own designation discovery.
This ensures queries are being sent to a party designated by the
resolver originally being used.

is that clients must go through the designation process when their
network attachment changes / they are re-configured WRT their UR. And
that's because there is strict administrative coupling between a UR and
its DRs that would be subverted otherwise.

I am scanning this for the first time and I may be off on a tangent
space, but if my reading is correct, then the text could be reorganised
a bit to make the context for the requirement clearer.

--

I found this other bit hard to parse:

Generally, clients also SHOULD NOT reuse the Designated Resolver
discovered from an Unencrypted Resolver over one network connection
in place of the same Unencrypted Resolver on another network
connection.

What about:

If a client is configured with the same Unencrypted Resolver's IP
address on two different networks n1 and n2, a Designated Resolver
that has been discovered on n1 SHOULD NOT be reused on n2 without
repeating the discovery process.

instead?

--

In the IANA section

IANA is requested to add an entry in "Transport-Independent
Locally-Served DNS Zones" registry for 'resolver.arpa.' with the
description "DNS Resolver Special-Use Domain", listing this document
as the reference.

Ignorant question: is there an associated delegation of 'resolver.arpa.'
needed in the '.arpa.' zone? Or is that not necessary?

@mstojens could you take a pass at this?

(For the .arpa one, we shouldn't do anything to the arpa zone)