Document: draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery-06
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: Jun 17, 2009
IETF LC End Date: June 19, 2009
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -


Summary: This draft is almost ready for consideration by the IESG, always provided that the IETF community is happy with additional load that a mobility handover lookup service might impose on the DNS infrastructure.

There are a couple of minor issues regarding IANA registries that ought to be improved and I wonder if a couple of the informative references really ought to be normative.

Comments:

Minor Issues:
s2.2:  The format of the NAPTR replacement field is specified by example.  A formal definition of the format should be provided. Also the format for SCTP transport is not specified.  In section 2.1 it is allowed that transport protocols other than TCP, UDP and SCTP could be used - the mapping from the letter in M2X to the string in the NAPTR record probably ought to be defined in an IANA registry.

s3: Following on from the previous comment I think there should be another registry to provide the mapping from M2X letter to NAPTR string.  Depending on whether it is intended that all combinations of transport and service should be defined in the registry or only a selected appropriate subset, second registry could be defined with just the base service name and the protocol specified to allow all possible combinations of service name and protocol letter.

s3: The namespace(s) need(s) a name.

s6: IMO ID.ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options is definitely normative.  Arguably the 802.21 spec, ID.ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution and ID.ietf-dnsext-forgery-resilience are also normative.


Editorial:
The abbreviation MN is not expanded on first use.
Header:  Current usage puts the teerminology and conventions as sections in the main body of the document.