Yes, that's better.
nit: specially-name -> specially named
On Thu, 24 May 2018, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/23/2018 4:11 PM, John Levine wrote:
I took a look at -attrleaf and -attrleaf-fix and the both look good to me.
The language about parent names is correct but a little confusing. If
I can figure out a less confusing way to reword it I'll pass it along.
Since it seems to be the only place with the string "parent name", I assume
you mean:
Scaling Benefits
...
An
increasingly-popular approach, with excellent scaling properties,
places the RRset under a node having an underscore-based name, at
a defined place in the DNS tree under the 'parent' name. This
constrains the use of particular <spanx style="verb">RR</spanx>
types associated with that parent name.
How about:
An
increasingly-popular approach, with excellent scaling properties,
places the RRset under a specially-name branch, which is in turn under the
node name that would otherwise contain the RRset. The rules for naming that
branch define the context for interpreting the RRset. That is, rather than:
domain-name.example
/
RRset
the arrangement is:
_branch.domain-name.example
/
RRset
d/
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
