Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-05
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2015/06/09
IESG Telechat date: 2015/06/11
Summary: Thank you for this very interesting and well written document.
This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC but I do
have a few minor comments you may wish to consider.
Not really sure if it belongs in this document, but I personally think
that DNScrypt is probably worth at least a passing mention as it
specifically deals with encryption of DNS requests.
* Section 2.1
In this text below it is unclear what value the parenthesized text adds.
Suggest removing this text or provide examples of the "more dubious reasons"
" The zone transfer QTYPE [RFC5936] is often blocked or restricted to
authenticated/authorized access to enforce this difference (and maybe
for other, more dubious reasons)."
* Section 8.3
Why is there a separate class of references for URI? Shouldn't this be
folded into either Normative or Informative? To be more specific, what
exactly is the difference between the Google Public DNS Privacy
reference in the URI subsection and the other Wikipedia references in 8.2.
* Section 1