Re: Review of draft-hardie-privsec-metadata-insertion-05

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the review; I've uploaded a -06 now which updates the abstract,
adds the reference to RFC 6891 and clarifies the language around the
purpose of the EDNS0 options.

regards,

Ted

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:18 AM, <"Michael Tüxen
<[e-mail]>"@ietfa.amsl.com> wrote:

> Reviewer: Michael Tüxen
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
> directorate's ongoing
> effort to review key IETF documents.
> These comments were written primarily for the transport area
> directors,
> but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to
> allow
> them to address any issues raised. When done at the time of IETF Last
> Call,
> the authors should consider this review together with any other
> last-call
> comments they receive.
> Please always CC [e-mail] if you reply to or forward this
> review.
>
> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
> should be
> fixed before publication.
>
> Running https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits.pyht reports
> * The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC7624]), which it
> shouldn't.
> * Unused Reference: 'RFC4301'
>
> The discussion of RFC 7871 in section 4 could be improved to allow
> readers
> not knowing the EDNS0 option to get the point. Either provide an
> abstract
> description or refer to RFC 6891.
>
>
>