I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>."

Thanks for a well-written and valuable document. The privacy benefits of this opportunistic approach represent an important step. I have a few comments/nits, but none are major.

Comments:
- In Section 3.1, “Pooled Authoritative Servers Behind a Single IP Address”, is it truly always a single IP address? I would assume that there could be a load-balancer that has both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address that forwards to a pool. Would it be more accurate to call this “…Behind a Load Balancer”?

Nits:

- It would be nice to add some text in the body of Section 2 (before Section 2.1) to explain what is meant by “priorities”, rather than having a bare section heading. For example, “The protocol described in this document is based on prioritizing the following features.”
- In Section 2.2, should future protocols other than DoT/DoQ be mentioned as being appropriate for this mechanism (or not)?
- It would be nice if the examples in Section 4.5 that don’t list both IPv4 and IPv6 example addresses chose IPv6 as the primary example.