Thanks for the review! On Sep 7, 2023, at 3:49 PM, Tommy Pauly via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Tommy Pauly > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for > draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing. These comments were written primarily for > the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) > should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other > IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that > have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/__;!!PtGJab4!4iLY4CWNWu6jI6uPwY9s6SVNFub8COCEk2E3QqLGvwi22RztZ1ttsbFRlcFmC02uvF3D6rUSk3aev2LDnYem1JJF$ [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/__;!!PtGJab4!4iLY4CWNWu6jI6uPwY9s6SVNFub8COCEk2E3QqLGvwi22RztZ1ttsbFRlcFmC02uvF3D6rUSk3aev2LDnYem1JJF$ [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org]>." > > Thanks for a well-written and valuable document. The privacy benefits of this > opportunistic approach represent an important step. I have a few comments/nits, > but none are major. > > Comments: > - In Section 3.1, “Pooled Authoritative Servers Behind a Single IP Address”, is > it truly always a single IP address? I would assume that there could be a > load-balancer that has both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address that forwards to a > pool. Would it be more accurate to call this “…Behind a Load Balancer”? > Good catch, yes. > Nits: > > - It would be nice to add some text in the body of Section 2 (before Section > 2.1) to explain what is meant by “priorities”, rather than having a bare > section heading. For example, “The protocol described in this document is based > on prioritizing the following features.” - In Section 2.2, should future > protocols other than DoT/DoQ be mentioned as being appropriate for this > mechanism (or not)? - It would be nice if the examples in Section 4.5 that > don’t list both IPv4 and IPv6 example addresses chose IPv6 as the primary > example. > Yeah, that section got sidetracked. Can fix. --Paul Hoffman -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
