[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-add-dnr-10

[Robert Sparks via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Issues

Summary: Has issues to address before publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

Issues:

The document claims that Section 2.4.1 of I-D.ietf.dnsop-svcb-https defines the
encoding for the Service Priority field. It does not - it only discusses the
semantics. More clarity is needed. In _this_ document I suggest explicitly
saying you are encoding the Service Priority as a 16bit unsigned integer.

Nits:

You define Do53 and use it exactly once. It is unnecessary. Just say
unencrypted DNS the one place you use Do53.

Consider removing, or significantly expanding on, the last paragraph of 7.4.
The notion of unique pre-shared keys here seems under-described, and feels out
of place to me in a Proposed Standard document.

Micro-nit:

Consider changing the title of section 3.4 to "Multihoming is out of scope"
since you don't present any actual multihoming considerations.