Belated thanks for this review. I've accepted many of the nits without note, but some notes below.
--Paul Hoffman On Jun 9, 2023, at 1:20 PM, Rich Salz via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Rich Salz > Review result: Has Nits > > Sec 2.2 Is the main point of the first paragraph to say that DoQ and DoT > don't address this type of deployment but leave it open for future docs? If > so, maybe that's worth stating directly. That idea was contentious in the WG because others tried to write those "future docs" but got nowhere. I'd rather not poke at them. The possibility of future docs is touched on in the abstract and the security considerations. > Sec 3 I think the ALPN the client "should" use (lowercase) is better than "may > use" This would lead to later reviews if we meant to capitalize the "should". :-) > Appendix A, is that to be removed when published? Should A and B explicitly > say they are not normative? The intended status of the document is now "experimental". Thus, Appendix A will remain in the document, and everything is not normative. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
