On August 30, 2023, I did an early review of
draft-ietf-dnsop-cds-consistency-03.

My primary concerns in that review were that the draft should define the
"multi-provider" (or whatever) term, or don't mention it at all; the interaction
with CSYNC records wasn't fully clear; and, handling non-responsive nameservers
wasn't clear.

These have all been addressed.  "Multi-provider setup" is defined (along with
"multi-signer setup"); use with CSYNC has been made clear; and there is some
advice on dealing with non-responsive nameservers.

I have a few minor nits and editorial advice.

In the Abstract:

    This document specifies that when performing such queries,
    parent-side entities has to ensure that updates triggered via
    CDS/CDNSKEY and CSYNC records are consistent across the child's
    authoritative nameservers, before taking any action based on
    these records

s/has/have -- The subject of that sentence is "entities", which is plural, so we
need "have" instead of "has" here.

In Section 3:

    To accommodate transient inconsistencies (e.g., replication
    delays), implementations MAY be configurable to undertake a
    retry of the full process, repeating all queries (suggested
    default: enabled). A schedule with exponential back-off is
    RECOMMENDED.

I wonder if we should talk about making a configuration or just talk about what
we thing the implementations should actually do?

Perhaps:

    Implementations SHOULD/MAY retry the full process when
    encountering inconsistencies to account for transient
    inconsistencies (e.g., replication delays.)