I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-05.txt Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan Review Date: 2015/06/09 IESG Telechat date: 2015/06/11 Summary: Thank you for this very interesting and well written document. This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC but I do have a few minor comments you may wish to consider. Minor: * General Not really sure if it belongs in this document, but I personally think that DNScrypt is probably worth at least a passing mention as it specifically deals with encryption of DNS requests. https://www.opendns.com/about/innovations/dnscrypt/ * Section 2.1 In this text below it is unclear what value the parenthesized text adds. Suggest removing this text or provide examples of the "more dubious reasons" " The zone transfer QTYPE [RFC5936] is often blocked or restricted to authenticated/authorized access to enforce this difference (and maybe for other, more dubious reasons)." * Section 8.3 Why is there a separate class of references for URI? Shouldn't this be folded into either Normative or Informative? To be more specific, what exactly is the difference between the Google Public DNS Privacy reference in the URI subsection and the other Wikipedia references in 8.2. Editorial: * Section 1 s/assume/assumes/ Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
