Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions
draft-ietf-hip-dns-09

  Gen-ART Review by Eric Gray ...

  Last paragraph before section 3.1 (mid page, Page 6), what would be
  an example of "ill effects" mentioned in this paragraph?  It seems
  to me that this statement could probably be more specific.

  Immediately prior to section 5.1, it may be helpful if the authors
  were to add a statement similar to the following:
  >
  > The format of these fields is described in the subsections below.
  >
  While this becomes obvious as you read on, it is usually the case
  that these formats would be provided in the same numbered section 
  as that in which the format is depicted.

  I have no idea if I am correctly interpreting the first sentence in
  section 8.2.  It looks as if there was additional text which was
  removed (perhaps another security related technology that is
  susceptible to eventual breakdown?).  It also contains what appears
  to be a parenthetical explanation of why a breakdown in security 
  occurs (but this is not very clear, because the sentence seems to
  end prematurely).  And the opening phrase "As many ... eventually
  become insecure," appears to lack a corresponding closing phrase
  that describes the outcome, consequence or result of the opening
  phrase.  From the following sentence, it seems that the intent was
  that the stated methods may not be sufficient.  But that is not
  obvious.  I suggest breaking this sentence up, or re-writing it
  from scratch.

  Nits:

  Last sentence of the first paragraph in section 3.2 (near bottom
  of Page 7):
  >
  > ... its set of IP Address(es).
  >
  should probably be one of:
  >
  > ... its IP Address(es).
  >
  or
  >
  > ... its (set of) IP Address(es).
  or
  >
  > ... its set of IP Addresses.
  >
  The pluralization of Address is not parenthetical as is (meaning it
  cannot be removed with no ill effect on the sentence) - hence it
  should not be parenthesized.

  Last bullet before section 4.2 (toward bottom of Page 9), I believe
  the phrase is "degenerate case" as opposed to "degenerated case"...

  In section 10, fifth line of the first paragraph, "thanks" should
  be "thank" ("... like to thank the following ...").

There are two occurrences of "HPIHI record" in section 6.  I believe that these were intended to
be "HIPHI record" (based on mailing list traffic and old IETF presentations.)  However, those
presentations date from when separate HIPHI and HIPRVS records were used.  A single RR
is now used in the specification, so I guess the name needs to just go away.  (Perhaps they
wre missed in a global search because of the typo?)