Subject: [CDNi] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-19: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 04:22:36 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-19: 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-cdni-redirection/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for handling my discuss point. I didn't check the comments
below but am happy to chat about them if needed.

----- OLD COMMENTS BELOW

- I support Alissa's discuss points.

- section 3: false-negative? don't you mean false-positive?
And in any case, those warnings are not false from the browser
perspective. I'd suggest s/false-negative//

- section 3: phrases like "trusted re-direction" are a bad
idea - you need to say who is trusting whom for what for this
to be meaningful and not misleading (people get misled by such
phrases all the time). I'd just delete the sentence or
s/trusted//

- 4.4.2: a JSON "string" is not the same as a DNS name is it?
What about i18n? (ULABEL or ALABEL?) what about odd characters
allowed in JSON but not in DNS names?  In general the fields
in this dictionary (and others) seem underspecified to me.