Robert, thanks for your review. Authors, I see that the changes have been applied — thanks. I entered a Yes ballot. Alissa > On Feb 7, 2020, at 10:50 AM, Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready with Nits > > This is a combined genart and secdir last-call review. > Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. > > Document: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2020-02-07 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-12 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Ready (but with nits) for publication as an Informational RFC > > This document provides a set of high-level requirements for a DNS-SD > privacy exptension, and discussion motivating those requirements. > > Comment: > It might be good to call out in the discussion that while it is intended > to be thorough, it's not possible to be exhaustive. > > Nits (editorial, in document order): > > The last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction is complex. > Consider breaking it apart. > > In the introduction at "When analyzing these scenarios in Section 3.2", > did you mean Section 3.1? > > In the first sentence of 3.2 at "the scenarios in Section 2", did you > mean Section 3.1? > > At the first sentence in 3.4.4, at "online" did you mean "on-link"? > > The statement in the second paragraph of section 4 is perhaps too strong. > Consider changing "will lead" to "are intended to lead". > > The item numbering in sections 4.1 and 4.2 are messsed up. > > The intent of the next to last paragraph in 4.1 and the last paragraph in 4.2 > could be made more clear. I suggest something like: "When listing and resolving > services in current DNS-SD deployments". > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
