Reviewer: Rich Salz Review result: Has Nits Some minor editorial issues, all could be fixed in last call or auth48. Sec 1, the parenthetical in paragraph three reads like a sentence fragment; is ", or local networks..." correct? Throughout, the use of "encrypted DNS resolver" kept confusing me -- does this mean where the data files, or the executable are encrypted? Perhaps "resolver supporting encrypted DNS" is more clear and not too wordy. Sec 3, paragraph two. Just IPv6? Seems wrong given the in-document definition of DHCP and the text in 3.1.3. Some editorial clean-up here seems needed. Sec 3.1.1, since 6125bis is (hopefully) forthcoming, does this need revising? Is the second paragraph of 3.1.2 appropriate? Probably, any answer is fine. But I would say "associate a DNS encryption protocol with each IP address." The last sentence is redundant. In 3.1.5, the "e.g." parenthetical seems misplaced; maybe after "encrypted DNS protocols (e.g.,..." ? REALLY NICE to see SVCB encodings re-used. Paramters as a typo for Parameters appears in a couple of places (5.1 and 6.1) Sec 7 is good, and seems comprehensive. I am not a DNS nor a DHCP expert. The last sentence of the first paragraph of 7.1 seems out of place. Is there a risk associated with this? Why is this a concern? (I can guess, but perhaps make it explicit) The bullet list of mitigations needs something like "In RA-Guard...." adding the word "In" Other constructs are reasonable, too. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
