Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. I have updated my draft on describing DNS messages in JSON.
> I still don't think that this WG needs to adopt this given that it is, as
> far as I can tell, thinly implemented. I think it's probably about baked
> enough for me to take it to the Independent Submissions editor to become an
> Experimental RFC. If y'all have any comments on it, please send them along
> and I'll incorporate before I move it along to RFChood.
Hi, Paul:
In section 3:
A paired DNS query and response is represented as an object. Two
optional members of this object are names "queryRecord" and
"responseRecord", and each has a value that is an message object.
This design was chosen (as compared to the more obvious array of two
values) so that a paired DNS query and response could be
differentiated from a stream of DNS messages whose length happens to
be two.
Why do you call these fields "queryRecord" and "responseRecord"? It seems
to me that "queryMessage" and "responseMessage" would be more intuitive.
In section 7:
This document has no effect on IANA registries.
Do you plan to register a media type for this format? There is some
precedent: the "application/dns" media type was registered for the
experimental format defined in RFC 2540 "Detached Domain Name System
(DNS) Information".
Nit: "Questing section" → "Question section"
--
Robert Edmonds
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
