[Dots] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: 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-dots-signal-channel/



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

A few minor items:

(1) Typos:

Section 3: s/signalling/signaling/
Section 4.4.1: s/implictily/implicitly/

(2) Section 7.1, Per “The DOTS client additionally uses [RFC6125] validation
techniques to compare the domain name with the certificate provided”, this
sentence appears to be missing a RFC2119 word – should it read something like
“Additionally, the DOTS client MUST use [RFC6125] validation …”?