Subject: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-06

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:16:01 -0500

Hi,

This is my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-06. I only 
have a few editorial comments. None of these need to delay IETF last 
call, and can be handled along with any feedback from the last call.

Thanks!

Ben.

---------

-1, 2nd paragraph, first sentence:

That sentence is a bit hard to parse, please consider breaking into two 
or more simpler sentences.

-2, definition of IPv4/IPv6 UA/UAC/UAS:

This defines one term, then declares the draft will use another. Why not 
just define _that_ term in the first place?

-4:

This section kind of buries the lede, and leaves me wondering what the 
actual clarification was. Is the point to say not to interleave the 
results of the address record queries among srv records? Is there a 
concern that people thought they were to do something different? It 
would be helpful to say what misconception you intend to clarify.

-5, first paragraph, last sentence:

Oddly constructed sentence. The structure seems to imply a tension 
between the idea of optimizing performance and not introducing security 
considerations. Please consider something to the effect of the 
following:

“Both of these procedures are optimization designed to improve the 
performance of dual-stack clients. Neither introduce new security 
considerations.”

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:04:30 -0400

> or more simpler sentences.

Broken into two sentences.  Yes, the joining of the two major clauses of
that sentence wasn't done quite correctly.

> just define _that_ term in the first place?

Done.

> would be helpful to say what misconception you intend to clarify.

I've revised the first paragraph; it now states a MUST for the important
point and a MUST NOT for what we have been fearing people might do.

> "Both of these procedures are optimization designed to improve the 
> considerations."

I've reorganized the paragraph.  And now it states the presupposition
that underlies the conclusion that no new security considerations are
introduced:  It's assumed that any address that can be derived from a
URI might be contacted to send a message to that URI.  E.g., security
does not depend on SRV priority always being followed.

Dale

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:47:18 -0500

It all sounds good (pending actual text).

Thanks!

Ben.

On 23 Jun 2016, at 14:04, Dale R. Worley wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore