Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-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 Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-09.txt Reviewer: Henning Rogge Review Date: 14.12.2019 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: * No issues found. This document is ready for publication. Comments: * I like the fact that DRIAD uses exiting DNS infrastructure for discovery with a large pool of existing software to use both on client and server side. DNS is ubiquitous in most networks and easy to bootstrap (e.g. by DHCP). * I also like the existence of the "no relay available" type for the AMTRELAY RData. Together with DNSSEC (or other signatures) this provides a secure way to make a gateway stop querying. Major Issues: * No major issues found. Minor Issues: * No minor issues found. Nits: * If an application with integrated AMT gateway does know the domain of the multicast sender, does it make sense to do a DNS-SD query to the sender? * In section 4.2.1 (RData Format - Precedence) you discuss that the Precedence field is used in the same way as the PREFERENCE field in MX RData. In a SRV record the field Priority has the same semantics. Is there a reason why you choose not to reuse one of the other names? Henning Rogge