I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Document:                       draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-03.txt Reviewer:                         Christer Holmberg Review Date:                   4 January 2017 IETF LC End Date:           10 January 2017 IETF Telechat Date:        19 January 2017 Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, I have one issue, and a few minor editorial issues in the Abstract/Introduction that I ask the authors to address. Major Issues: Q1_Abstract: ------------------ The text says: "The reason there are two methods instead of one is some people see significant problems with each method." This text looks very strange to an outsider like myself. I can understand that people sometimes have different preferences, but when you say "people see significant problems" it makes me wonder why a publication request has been done in the first place. Don't we normally publish RFCs because we want to SOLVE problems - not because we want to (at least not intentionally) create new ones? :) I think it would be good to talk about people having different preferences (and within the document the reasons can be described in more detail) instead of people seeing problems. Also, I am not sure whether the Abstract needs to talk about the reason for having two methods. I think a statement saying that the background and reason for two methods are described within the document would be enough within the Abstract. Minor Issues: Note Editorial Issues: Q2_Section_1: -------------------- In order to use consistent terminology, please replace "This draft" with "This document". Q3_Section_1: -------------------- The text says: "This is done in two ways:" I suggest to replace the text with the statement found in the Abstract: "This document describes two independent methods for validating resolvers to publish their referenced keys:" Q4_Section_1-1: ---------------------- The text says: "Initially this document was named draft-edns-key-tag and proposed including Key Tag values in a new EDNS(0) option code. It was modeled after [RFC6975], which provides DNSSEC algorithm signaling." Why do you include the name of the initial draft? Initial drafts can be called anything. I think it is enough to instead talk about the initially suggested mechanism. Something like: "Initially, when the work on this document started, it proposed including Key Tag values in a new EDNS(0) option code. It was modeled after [RFC6975], which provides DNSSEC algorithm signaling." Q5_Section_1-1: ---------------------- The text says: "The authors received feedback from Working Group participants" Please write the name of the Working Group. The name of the WG is currently only mentioned in the Acknowledgements.