Paul,
thanks for your expedite response to my review comments.
Please see a few inline follow-up remarks below.
I have deleted all parts that don't need further elaboration.
>> (1) Section 1
>>
>> (1.1) 1st paragraph
>>
>> [...]
>
>> b) In a few places, the draft uses very terse forms of preci
On 4/25/2012 4:58 PM, Alfred � wrote:
> It has been pointed out that the DNS Referral Response Size Issues
> I-D should not be left going to final expiry, and I have performed
> a new review of the last version, draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-13.
>
> I only found a small number of remaining editorial ni
It has been pointed out that the DNS Referral Response Size Issues
I-D should not be left going to final expiry, and I have performed
a new review of the last version, draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-13.
I only found a small number of remaining editorial nits -- either
formerly overlooked or newly intro
