an editorial review of draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-13

It has been pointed out that the DNS Referral Response Size Issues
I-D should not be left going to final expiry, and I have performed
a new review of the last version, draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-13.

I only found a small number of remaining editorial nits -- either
formerly overlooked or newly introduced.  You might want to take
the opportunity of the notes below to refresh the draft.

(1)  Section 1

(1.1)  1st paragraph

a) The object of the first sentence lacks an article; "the" should be
   supplied.

b) In a few places, the draft uses very terse forms of precise
   citations, which better should be expanded a bit for readability;
   the first occurrence of this is here as well:
   "(see [RFC1035] 4.2.1)"            should say
   "(see [RFC1035], Section 4.2.1)"   or even better
   "(see Section 4.2.1 of [RFC1035])" .

Chosing the latter form, the corrections will accumulate to:

|  The original DNS standard limited UDP message size to 512 octets (see
|  [RFC1035] 4.2.1).  Even though this limitation was due to the
   required minimum IP reassembly limit for IPv4, it became a hard DNS
   protocol limit and is not implicitly relaxed by changes in a network
   layer protocol, for example to IPv6.
---                                 vvvvv