[DNSOP] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-10: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to Experimental [RFC7816].

"Abstract", paragraph 3, comment:
>    This document is part of the IETF DNSOP (DNS Operations) Working
>    Group.  The source of the document, as well as a list of open issues,
>    is at <https://framagit.org/bortzmeyer/rfc7816-bis>

Should this not be removed before publication?

Obsolete reference to RFC7626, obsoleted by RFC9076 (this may be on purpose).

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Terms "traditional", "tradition", "Traditionally"; alternatives might be
   "classic", "classical", "common", "conventional", "customary", "fixed",
   "habitual", "historic", "long-established", "popular", "prescribed",
   "regular", "rooted", "time-honored", "universal", "widely used",
   "widespread".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool) so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

"Table of Contents", paragraph 2, nit:
> ed in Section 6.1 of [RFC6973]: the less data you send out, the fewer privac
>                                     ^^^^
Did you mean "fewer"? The noun data is countable. (Also elsewhere.)

Section 1.2. , paragraph 3, nit:
>  is to minimise the amount of privacy sensitive data sent from the DNS resolv
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen. (Also elsewhere.)

Section 4. , paragraph 1, nit:
> en saved if the incoming QTYPE would have been the same as the QTYPE selected
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you mean "had been"? (Also elsewhere.)