1 files changed, 18 insertions, 10 deletions

diff --git a/rs_review_202204.txt b/rs_review_202204.txt
index 419dc0e..3b28856 100644
--- a/rs_review_202204.txt
+++ b/rs_review_202204.txt
@@ -33,8 +33,7 @@ Each definition might be more clear if the repetition of the term were omitted a
 
 In the "Name" definition, do you mean "applications MAY *require* that ... "?
 
-===== I think we could also formulate it like that. But that would be a normative statement for the application
-as opposed to a normative statement what the GNS impl. should expect.
+===== I think we could also formulate it like that. But that would be a normative statement for the application as opposed to a normative statement what the GNS impl. should expect. => No change.
 
 Using "Zone type" as the term for cipher and encoding seemed strange to me, why not "Zone Representation" or something shorter?  One or two examples before the terms, with text identifying the parts in the definition, would be helpful.
 
@@ -46,7 +45,7 @@ Sec 3, "cryptographically secured zones" is redundant, aren't all zones cryptogr
 
 Last sentence of first paragraph repeats the definition we just read.
 
-===== I don't think so.
+===== Unable to find this issue in the text itself.
 
 Second para "A zone can be populated by its owner with ..." A clarification that the distributed storage isn't required by the protocol would be useful.
 
@@ -54,21 +53,23 @@ Second para "A zone can be populated by its owner with ..." A clarification that
 
 The text introducing figure 2 makes me think it's going to show all the flows for a recursive resolution, and it is rather a high-level view.
 
-===== That is what the figure description sais and I think  this is enough for an "Overview".
+===== That is what the figure description sais and I think this is enough for an "Overview".
 
 Sec 4, which user creates and manages zones?  The Zone admin? The end-user?
 
-==== TODO
+==== Zone owners. Clarified.
 
 The forward ref to Section 5.1 should be before the list of algorithms in my opinion.
 
-==== TODO. After first review I disagree as it refers to the functions which are  introduced above.
+==== After review I disagree as it refers to the functions which are introduced above that text.
 
 Sec 4.1, maybe say "||" is the concatenation operator and that "[a..b]" is the semi-closed range from A to B-1
 
+==== Clarified the use of the operators.
+
 Sec 4.2, "strictly monotonically increasing order" I think monotonically is wrong.
 
-====== I am 95% sure that monotonically is correct when we talk about a function. Not sure about order.
+====== I am 99% sure that monotonically is correct and the important part.
 
 Sec 5, nice to block of IANA numbers for interop. Are timestamps in GNS always 64bit microsec since 1/1/1970? Maybe add a definition or something at the top?
 
@@ -82,18 +83,23 @@ Sec 5.1.1, the crypto heart starts to appear. ;)  This all looks okay to me, and
 
 Sec 5.1.2, "highest 32 bytes" maybe "top-most"?  Nit.  SignDerived is clever.  Consider asking CFRG to review the crypto in Sec 5.
 
+======= We could do that, but then again we had a review by djb already.
+
 Sec 5.2.1+5.2.2, have you thought of allowing multiple REDIRECT records to achieve some kind of load-balancing or other?
 
-======= Q: Maybe we want this? CNAME did not allow this, but it seems to be used in practice occasionally https://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/networking_2ndEd/dns/ch10_07.htm#dns4-CHP-10-SECT-7.1
+======= This is a CNAME-derivative. It seems that CNAMEs do not support this either: https://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/networking_2ndEd/dns/ch10_07.htm#dns4-CHP-10-SECT-7.1
 
 Sec 5.3.1, I would think TLS SNI value is also common for LEHO data.
 
+===== Added ref to RFC6066 SNI
+
 Sec 5.3.3, not unlike the new SVCB RR type?
 
+==== Yeah, bit is still draft status (?).
+
 Sec 6, is this whole storage strictly necessary for interop?  You could split it off into a separate document. There's not enough here to implement the storage. What happens to resolution if the GET() fails? I assume that's discussed.
 
-======= FIXME: We may want to consider renaming Section 6 and/or move it into a subsection of Section 5 as we do not really define the storage here.
-======= Record Wire Format / Record Encoding
+======= Renamed section to "Record Encoding" in order to avoid storage confusion.
 
 Sec 7, the application filters record sets.  Oh, that is *VERY* interesting.  And that picture is starting to look familiar. Third time?
 
@@ -101,6 +107,8 @@ Sec 7.1+7.2+7.3 very nice, very clear, I could implement this (modulo the storag
 
 Sec 9.3 seems very important.  Somewhere up near the front you should forward-link to it.  And in the security considerations, backlink.
 
+===== Added.
+
 Sec 9.4, it's difficult because it requires law enforcement, etc., to get the private key?  Is that really so hard? https://xkcd.com/538/
 
 ==== No, because of the user-centric design for delegations. TODO: Clarify again in text?