On 28 Jun 2018, at 7:19, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/27/2018 3:01 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Due to its nature, the document is a bit difficult to read, but I
don't have any suggestion about how to make it better.
Could you at least provide some description of what it is that you
find difficult?
It feels like it loops into itself, where 3.1 and 3.2 sound like, but
are different than, 2.2 and 2.3. I've stared it, and I don't see a way
to make it better without making 2.2 and 2.3 more convoluted. It's not
worth worrying about more unless someone else comes up with a
simplification that is actually simpler.
The only problem I have with the document is that there are lots of
informational references that are not referred to in the body of the
text; they are not even listed in the Updates list at the top of the
document. This should either be explained clearly in the body of the
document or removed.
Assuming my xml processor produces the same list of not-used
references as yours: most indeed needed to be added to the Updates
list and have been. A few were carry-overs from the base document and
indeed are unused here; they've been drops. Thanks for the audit.
s/audit/visual scan/ :-)
FWIW, I'd considered replicating the Updates list in the body of the
document, solely to get rid of the 'unused' list during processing,
but decided that merely invites divergent copies...
Fully agree.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
