[DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03: Yes

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Suzanne Woolf for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Meta data

As noted by Roman and the idnits, please use only numbers in the "Updates" tag.

## Section 1

It is somehow ambiguous who are the "we" often used in this section: is it the
authors ? the WG ? the IETF ? Using passive voice (or alternatives) would avoid
this ambiguity.

## Appendix A.1

Suggest adding a reference to BCP14 in `normative requirements keyword`

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Generic

The repetition of `OPCODE = 0 (QUERY)` is an eye distraction, please consider
using on "QUERY" after the first occurence.

## Section 1

s/Question Section of a message/Question Section of a DNS message/ ?