# OPSDIR review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in the last-call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last-call comments.

The document is clear and well-written. The motivation is described well. The guiance is clear. I have some minor comments and nits.  

## Minor

- Section 4.6.1, in the below text, does "persistence" play no role when you say "regardless of how long in the past that was"?
~~~~
   *  E-status[X] is success, and (T0 - E-last-response[X]) <
      persistence

   This indicates that one successful connection to a server that the
   client then closed cleanly would result in the client not sending the
   next query over Do53, regardless of how long in the past that was.
~~~~

- Section 4.6.5, in the text "if Q is not present in any other *-queries[X] or in Do53-queries[X]", does Do53-queries not part of *-queries? If this is not true perhaps please explain early on what *-queries mean. (Note there are other instances of this as well)

- Section 6.2, suggest to state clearly why modeling the probability is listed under privacy consideration. This is not clear from the current text. 

- Appendix A, any reason not to follow RFC 7942?

- Appendix B, considering expanding this more on how would you judge this experiment to be a success and perhaps move to standards track?


## Nits

- Abstract, shouldnt "underlying transport" be "underlying encrypted transport"? 

- Section 1.2, add DoH

- For the quotes in Section 2.2
    - It is better to state the RFCs where these quotes originate. 
    - You could also use visual cues via blockquotes 

- Section 3, you expand DoT and DoQ here but, they have already been used without expansion in 2.2

- Section 4, s/in failed resolutions or significant delay/in failed resolutions or significant delays/

Thanks! 
Dhruv