On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:53 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> As I said, I though the text you copied from 8499 was good. It's also fine > to just refer to 8499. As for the graph theory quote, if I'd reviewed 8499 > I would have said the same thing about it there. > > This is not a huge problem. It's just something that I saw that I thought > could be improved, and then I guess Warren chimed in on it. > Yup - I did this while juggling jury duty and trying to figure how I was going to survive without my phone :-P I don't think it's reasonable to say "8499 says this, and even though > that's somewhat confusing, it's more important to repeat what 8499 says > than to say it more clearly." I am not sure Michael intended to say that, > but that's how I read his response. > > So, from my personal perspective I would prefer that you put back the FQDN > text and add an example for the "label" text. > Yup. But I'm also perfectly okay with you just deferring explicitly to 8499 and > not copying what it says at all. > Me too! And I'm also okay with you telling me to shut up. This is not something > anybody should be losing any sleep over! > Indeed. It feel like we might be getting somewhat frustrated over this text - as Ted noted, they were nits intended to try and improve the document. Any of the above, including the original are more than fine with me… W > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 10:34 AM Owen Friel (ofriel) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> As Michael says, in -14 and earlier, we were verbatim without change >> copying text from RFC8499. >> >> And the latest -15 abridges the text to remove quoting of the offending >> text from RFC8499. >> >> If neither of the above are acceptable, how about this text: >> >> "The terms Label, Domain Name, Subdomain and FQDN are used throughout >> this document. Please refer to [RFC8499] for a definition of these terms." >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 2:58 PM >> To: Ted Lemon <[email protected]>; Warren Kumari <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-acme-integrations.all@ >> ietf.org; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-acme-integrations-15 >> >> >> WARREN: >> >> Ted Lemon via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Frustratingly, the -15 update makes the document worse as a result >> of >> > my initial comments, not better. I think the authors didn't >> understand >> > why I made the comments, and hence are just trying to get rid of the >> > text that I commented on rather than fixing it. I actually >> suggested a >> > better way to write the text, in the initial review, which may have >> > gotten lost: >> >> Hi, I appreciate your frustation. >> You complained gently about text that wasn't ours. It was copied from >> RFC8499. >> We quoted the definitions to save you a trip to RFC8499 and back. >> >> That's an entire RFC *JUST* for DNS Terminology. Were you aware of this? >> Was WARREN aware when he asked us to look at your nit, aware of that? >> >> If using RFC8499 definitions is wrong in a document that deals a lot >> about DNS, then we really really have a problem. Especially for a DNS >> Directorate REVIEW. >> >> Editing the definitions would just lead to confusion as people wondered >> why we changed things. Abridging things to omit the words you found >> unhelpful at least makes it clear we aren't trying to change things. >> My co-author suggested we just rip all our text out. >> >> >> I'm not seriously proposing that you make this change, but if you >> >> don't, I think you should delete the sentence about graph theory, >> >> because it's just confusingly broad if you don't then actually >> >> describe the subset of graph theory you're talking about. >> >> > So, as an example, I did not suggest removing the text about >> > fully-qualified domains, which was fine, and is now not fine, in the >> > sense that the reader will have no idea why they are being >> mentioned. >> >> We shortened it to what we thought was essential, but maybe we cut too >> much. >> >> -- >> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh >> networks [ >> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network >> architect [ >> ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on >> rails [ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS* >> >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
