Document: draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf
Title: Community considerations on DNS WG structures at IETF
Reviewer: David Lou
Review result: Ready with Nits

This is an IETF process document, not a technical document. So the comments here are more focused on the text itself. 

Major issues:
None

Minor issues: 
It could be my personal opinion instead of a minor issue. But I put it here anyway for discussion/consideration.
In the "Recommendations" chapter, it is recommended to create 3 new WGs, where I wonder whether it is really necessary to create a DNSDISPATCH WG, for the following reasons:
- The Findings in chapter 2 shows the community has consensus on create 2 WGs instead of 3. Regarding the dispatch work, it states that "A separated DNSDISPATCH mechanism would be beneficial...".
- The text gives audiences the impression that a new WG is not really required. For instance, "this WG should conduct its work almost entirely over a mailing list...", "Ideally, in-person meetings should be rare.", "A significant portion of submissions to DNSDISPTACH can likely be handled quickly and efficiently".
- In each Area, there is already a WG (e.g. the INTAREA WG) acting primarily as a forum for discussing a wide spectrum of topics that affect the entire area, and taking partially the responsibility to "dispatch" a topic to the right WG in case of ambiguity. 
- On top of that, there is a DNS Directorate in the Ops Area, which can help dispatch DNS-related topics as well.

Some nits:
1. P2, Table of Contents, "1.2 Requirements language" -> "1.2 Requirements Language"; "Orginal project announcement" - > "Orginal Project Announcement"
2. P3, "The team uses a few new WG names below, but recognize both... " -> "but recognizes both... "
3. P4, "used to stress importance of some recommendations" -> "used to stress the importance of some recommendations"
4. P6, "each WG will need to make their own decision on this matter" -> "to make its own decision on this matter"
5. P7, "submissions to DNSDISPTACH can likely" -> "submissions to DNSDISPATCH can likely"
6. P9, "WG chairs, AD, ISE, etc" -> "WG chairs, AD, ISE, etc.,"