Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-04

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:45:09 -0700

Reviewer: Joe Clarke
Review result: Has Nits

I have been asked to review this document on behalf of the ops directorate. 
This document is intended for experimental status, and describes a number of
strategies to take when performing EDNS(0) padding.  It recommends one
(experimental) option to use based on empirical data.  Overall, I think this
document is close to be ready.  In general, coming at it from an operator
standpoint, I thought the layout was a bit odd.  The recommended option is
spelled out first, but then the document goes into sub-optimal approaches
before it actually describes the full recommended solution (both from a query
and response stance).  It might flow better to discuss the recommended approach
in detail while leaving all of the sub-optimal approaches for appendices.  At
the very least, the Maximal Length Padding approach feels somewhat non-sensible
and should be pushed to the appendix.

Nit-wise, I found the following:

Section 3:

s/signifcantly/significantly/

s/octects/octets/

===

Section 4.1

You refer to Maximum Length Padding here, but Section 4.2 calls it "Maximal
Length Padding".

===

Section 4.2

Is referencing "The Full Monty" needed here?

===

Section 4.3

You expand (pseudo) to (pseudo) random number in Section 4.1.  I think the same
should be done here for clarity.

===

Section 4.4

s/transction/transaction/

===

Section 5

When you talk about a multiple of 468 bytes used for response padding, I think
you should include a "see below".

===

Section 5

s/octects/octets/

===

Section 5

Where you have "Note that the recommendation above does apply only..." I think
it reads better to say, "Note that the recommendation above applies only..."

===

Section 8

s/inffective/ineffective/