Thanks for the early review!
On Jun 5, 2023, at 11:41 AM, Haoyu Song via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > The description in 4.6.2 is confusing. If the first condition causes Q to be > removed, then if R is successful, Q no longer exists. Then how can R be > further processed? The logic here should be better organized. Good catch! We don't need to discard R in order to ignore it. > > 4.6.3 “the timer should examine and possibly refresh its state” -> “the timer > should be examined, and its state are possibly refreshed” Good. > When mentioning a particular state or status, it’s better to put it in > quotation marks or capitalize it to avoid confusion. For example, early, sent, > unsent, success, … > > Pg.18 “For example, What if …” -> “For example, what if…” I think this is an artifact of you reading the text version instead of the HTML version. This is a known problem with the RFC series today. > > 4.6.11 “a encrypted” -> “an encrypted” Fixed, and in a few other places. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
