Early Review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-06
review-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-06-intdir-early-song-2023-06-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-06-30
Requested 2023-05-30
Requested by Brian Haberman
Authors Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Joey Salazar , Paul E. Hoffman
I-D last updated 2023-06-05
Completed reviews Dnsdir Last Call review of -10 by Florian Obser (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -11 by Florian Obser (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -12 by Bron Gondwana (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -12 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -12 by Florian Obser (diff)
Dnsdir Early review of -09 by Florian Obser (diff)
Intdir Early review of -06 by Haoyu Song (diff)
Secdir Early review of -07 by Rich Salz (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Haoyu Song
State Partially completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/OcfClm8aCUwWQSjAVrVOqkZzBwg
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-06-05
review-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-06-intdir-early-song-2023-06-05-00
Below are a few questions, nits, suggestions.

The description in 4.6.2 is confusing. If the first condition causes Q to be
removed, then if R is successful, Q no longer exists.  Then how can R be
further processed?  The logic here should be better organized.

4.6.3 “the timer should examine and possibly refresh its state” -> “the timer
should be examined, and its state are possibly refreshed”

When mentioning a particular state or status, it’s better to put it in
quotation marks or capitalize it to avoid confusion. For example, early, sent,
unsent, success, …

Pg.18 “For example, What if …” -> “For example, what if…”

4.6.11 “a encrypted” -> “an encrypted”