Re: [dns-privacy] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

Rob

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 8:40 AM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-06: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for this document.  I found it interesting and easy to read.
>
> A few minor comments/nits that I spotted whilst reading this document:
>
> "in clear (i.e., unencrypted)." => "unencrypted."
> "However there is" => "However, there is"
> "designed for TCP, not UDP and new" => "designed for TCP, not UDP, and new"
> "It can be noted also that" => "It can also be noted that"
> "Both are a big privacy concern" => "Both are significant privacy concerns"
> "de-NAT DNS queries dns-de-nat [3]" => "de-NAT DNS queries [3]"?
>
>
Thanks for these - the last one appears to be a markdown reference fail.
I'll make sure it's worked out

thanks
tim

> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
>
>