I like the formatting in the new draft, a great improvement! And thanks for incorporating so many of my suggestions.
I mentioned an alphabetical index in my previous comment - I expect that will be easier to add during final editing. I want to mention it again because one of the main questions a reader will have is, does this glossary define the term I am looking for? An alphabetical index would help a lot. I am disappointed by the discussion of this revision in two related ways. Principally, I was hoping that the comments and questions that I sent to the WG a month ago would be provocative - the arguments around this draft have been interesting. But in the absence of any replies I was at least hoping for point-by-point explanations from the document authors about why they did not adopt particular suggestions. Two sides to an argument is a lot more interesting than a huge pile of nitpicking :-) Perhaps we are all suffering from re-reading fatigue... The previous version had a note about recursion and iteration that I think came from one of my earlier suggestions. I tried to flesh out that suggestion in my message last month, but it wasn't adopted. I would really like some critical discussion of the "more definitions" section of http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg14243.html Three remaining complaints about the draft's contents: "recursive mode" and "iterative mode". No-one uses those phrases. The definition of "authoritative data" is still wrong. I am still unhappy about the description of referrals. (I found them surprisingly slippery when I was writing my suggestions.) And I think delegation is more often a noun than a verb. Nits: Under SEP, "RRdata" should be "RDATA". Also, I think this sentence from RFC 6781 section 3.2.3 is important because most key management tooling implements it - "It is suggested that the SEP flag be set on keys that are used as KSKs and not on keys that are used as ZSKs." "child-centric resolver" - kill it. Finally, I recently found Dyn's terminology list which is pretty nice, though it include a lot of off-topic headwords. But it is probably worth a look in case it has anything worth cribbing. http://pages.dyn.com/rs/dyn/images/EB002_DNS-Terminology_v2.pdf Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Trafalgar: Northerly 4 or 5, increasing 6 at times, but easterly 6 to gale 8 in far southeast. Rough, becoming moderate later except in far southeast. Mainly fair. Good. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
