Reviewer: Tim Wicinski Review Result: On the right track, but needs work This is an early review of draft-ietf-drip-registries (version -09) I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the ADs. For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir I reviewed this document with the idea that I'll be reviewing this document at least one more time (perhaps more). Some of these notes are to make sure I follow up with them during this process. The document talks about creating and delegating the subdomain uas.icao.arpa. The authors should be aware they the document will need a section requesting this from the IAB and referencing RFC3172. A recent example can be found here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8375.html#page-9 The document discusses a new HHIT DNS Resource Record Type. The authors should inlcude an IANA considerations section requesting the creation of the HHIT RR Type. In Section A.1 DRIP Entity Tag, the example is as follows: Apex: .det.uas.icao.arpa. DET: 2001:0030:0280:1405:c465:1542:a33f:dc26 ID: c4651542a33fdc26 OGA: 05 HID: 0028014 HDA: 0014 RAA: 000a Prefix: 2001003 FQDN: c4651542a33fdc26.05.0014.000a.2001003.det.uas.icao.arpa. It states "When building a DET FQDN it MUST must be built using the exploded (all padding present) form of the IPv6 address". Earlier in the document, it is stated that 2001:30/28 is registered with IANA already. Perhaps my IPv6 math is incorrect, but should the prefix not be "20010030" ? Section 10 on X.509 certificates and TLSA resource records is currently very hand wavey. I would hope this will be firmed up. Section 4.5 on Text Conventions should be moved up into the Terminology section. There are a few acronyms (such as ORCHIDs) which are not defined in the document, and should be. In Figure 2, the expanded names are used, but the figure should include the acronyms, as they are used in the document. There are several Interface/Provisioning mechanisms described (HTTPS for JSON/CBOR, RDAP, RDDS, etc). A more useful way to document these interfaces would make it clearer. Perhaps a second version of Figure 2 where each interface is marked? The document does talk about DNS components, but there are no examples. There should be an appendix which gives examples of the records that end up in the registry.