> On 22 Feb 2017, at 22:53, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Thanks for the update. It addresses the issues I found. Best regards Michael > > regards, > > Ted > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:18 AM, <"Michael Tüxen <tuexen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"@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 tsv-art@xxxxxxxx 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tsv-art mailing list > Tsv-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>