On Jun 14, 2015, at 10:05 AM, John Dickinson <j...@sinodun.com> wrote: > Typo: I think you mean parent-side not parent-size.
"No, I'm sorry, you can't have a big NS record like that until you're older and have had kids of your own." Fixed. > A few other things that have confused me in the past: > > In-bailiwick: Informal discussion (in the bar at IETF meetings) suggests to > me that most people are confused by this term. To me and about 50% of the > people I have asked it means "Data for which the server is authoritative and > *not* data for which the server is an authoritative ancestor". To me that is > more in keeping with the dictionary definition of bailiwick. However, at > least 50% of people in the bar felt differently. IMHO I think this is a term > that should be deprecated and replaced by "in zone" or "in domain". We don't get to deprecate commonly-used terms in this document, unfortunately. In the -bis document, we might make a run at that, or at least in saying "if this term confuses you, use X instead". > Some RR types are described as "class independent" (See RFC4034) I am not > sure of the exact meaning of this (despite Roy's attempts to educate me) and > would like to see it defined here. Good call. Proposed addition: Class independent: A resource record type whose syntax and semantics are the same for every DNS class. A resource record type that is not class independent has different meanings depending on the DNS class of the record, or the meaning is undefined for classes other than IN. > Also mention of A-Label, U-Label any other IDN terminology might be useful. Good call. "A-label" and "U-label" are sometimes bandied about without reference to IDNA, so it would be good to at least add them to the "IDN" entry in this document. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
