Thanks for these improvements! I approve the "dot-last" listing of special-use domain names.
Some further comments: Section 1: "This specification expects that local DNS servers will be securely identified ..." -> This statement strikes me as more personifying than is necessary. It's also strange because, leaving aside the specification's opinion, I don't expect that most local DNS servers will be securely identified. The prior text said "this specification relies on ...", in an attempt to convey the idea that secure identification is a precondition, not a prediction (as implied by the future tense "will be"). Other possible verbs for this sentence would be "require" or "assume" (or "applies only to networks where the local DNS server is securely identified", etc.). Section 5: "If the local encrypted resolver is identified by name (e.g., DNR)," -> Perhaps "(e.g., using DNR)" would be more correct. Section 8: "Figure 2 shows discovery using DNR and PvD information." -> "information from DNR and PvD" seems preferable to avoid ambiguity about whether "information" applies to both "DNR" and "PvD". "The client determines the network's DNS server (dns.example.net) and PvD information (pvd.example.com) using DNR [RFC9463] and PvDs [RFC8801], using one of the following: DNR Router Solicitation, DHCPv4, or DHCPv6." -> This sentence has a few problems: pvd.example.com is not really the "PvD information", nothing in steps 1-2 actually uses PvDs, and "DNR Router Solicitation" is not a logical alternative to "DHCPv4". I suggest this replacement: "The client determines the network's DNS server (dns.example.net) and PvD ID (pvd.example.com) using DNR and one of the following: Router Solicitation, DHCPv4, or DHCPv6." "PvD JSON information ... The PvD contains:" -> RFC 8801 consistently uses the term "PvD Additional Information" for this JSON object. Referring to it as "JSON information" is clear enough but seems informal, and calling it "the PvD" seems to compromise precision. I would prefer "PvD Additional Information ... The JSON object contains:" General note: The capitalization of "Option" in the context of DHCP and RA still seems somewhat inconsistent. c.f. RFC 8801's consistent capitalization of "PvD Option". --Ben
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
