Hello

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

There are are clear and direct references to various DNS RFC's and this 
draft is not in any major conflict with the wider DNS space but the 
following specific suggestions relating to DNS are made. 

I previously Reviewed Version 18 of this draft and am re-rereviewing in 
line with the comments I made in that review - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-18-dnsdir-telechat-somerset-2022-10-12/

Having re-read the new version a few times, and keeping track of the various 
reviews as not to duplicate reports for same issues i will try not say the same
things again.

I specifically note that Geoff has done a very definitive review of version 25 
of the document and i won't repeat those comments in this review but suffice 
to say i do concur with the assessment of the situation in his review and 
agree with the position of Ready with Issues as well

I am happy with the large effort to reflow the document - it does now read in a
more sensible order and helps with clarity.

I am also happy with the additional security considerations that make sense.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues:

Section 2 - Public Authoritative Servers - my original NIT was dealt with but I
note that anycast is now referenced here which is still extraneous, we are not
attempting to deal with the standard of how Public Authoritative Servers be
managed operationally

Section 3 - now Section 5 - i note specifically the comment about:

"In the case the HNA is a CPE, outsourcing to the DOI protects the home network 
against DDoS for example."

I personally would consider this a dangerously inaccurate statement.

This offers NO protection against a DDoS, at best it (only) slightly reduces
the attack surface exposed but it provides no meaningful additional protection.

I specifically repeat this and recommend the statement be removed or re-worded
appropriately

Section 3.2 - Original NIT dealt with

1.1 - now 3 - NIT dealt with

3.1 now 5.1 - Typo fixed

4.5.1 - now 6.5.1 - i believe this NIT to be well addressed now, the reflowing 
of the document definitely helps here.

Thanks