Hi all, I find Joe's comment does lend a lexical consistency. But perhaps we prefer a semantic consistency? The trust anchor file could be any data format that collects the trust anchors. This RFC defines that file to be an XML document. A future RFC could define a new trust anchor file that is another format. I think, so long as we use file/document along these lines, there is no issue.
I don't feel strongly either way, however. — Guillaume Bailey ________________________________ From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 3:29 PM To: Joe Abley <jab...@cloudflare.com>; Jakob Schlyter <ja...@kirei.se>; guillaumebai...@outlook.com <guillaumebai...@outlook.com> Cc: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; dnsop-...@ietf.org <dnsop-...@ietf.org>; dnsop-chairs <dnsop-cha...@ietf.org>; suzworldw...@gmail.com <suzworldw...@gmail.com>; Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9718 <draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-06> for your review On Jan 15, 2025, at 02:59, Joe Abley <jab...@cloudflare.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Jan 15, 2025, at 09:43, Joe Abley <jab...@cloudflare.com> wrote: > >> My apologies for the delay; I have been on a protracted vacation and was >> deliberately ignoring my work inbox while I was away. >> >> I will look at this today. > > The document refers to "trust anchor file" in a bunch of places. It also > refers to the "XML document" or simply "document" to refer to the same thing. > I think it would be nice to be consistent. Personally, I find the word "file" > to be archaic, and I don't like that it presupposes an implementation of > (e.g.) something stored on a filesystem. This commen is amazingly late in the process. Please note that the word "file" was used in every draft and, in fact, in RFC 7958. > I think "document" is better and in my opinion the document should use "trust > anchor document", "XML document", "document" consistently throughout. Are you looking at the current versions of the documents? I do not find "trust anchor document" used in the AUTH48 version. Further, I do not find the use of the word "document" not following "XML" where it means the trust anchor document. If Jakob and Guillaume agree, we can carefully excise "file" and replace it with "XML document". I can do that work, instead of just listing places where the RFC Editor needs to guess what our intention is. --Paul Hoffman
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
