On 12 July 2018 at 02:58, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > On 7/6/2018 8:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> Editorial: I would prefer all occurrences of "right-most" to be >> replaced by "most general", to emphasize that it is not the position >> which matters, it is the closeness to the root. >> >> Editorial: 'that is they are the "top" of a DNS branch, under a >> "parent" domain name.' I assume that "top" is used instead of "apex" >> because the sentence does not always refer to the top of a zone? >> > > > So, this turned into a niggling 'thing' for me and produced a collection > of small changes. > > The basic model now is to introduce the issue early in the document and > dispatch it once, and then use a single term for the rest of the document, > without all the distractingly redundant clarifications. > > So there's now text in attrleaf that explains about hierarchy, top, > highest, and the original presentation convention of right, but noting that > other presentations are possible. >
IMO unnecessary. This will inevitably either overlap or conflict with the draft RFC7719-bis DNS terminology document. Better to use already battle-hardened terminology throughout and add RFC7719-bis citation. > It then declares the term 'global' as referring to the node name of > interest and only uses that term in the rest of the document. "global" does not tick the right box for me. Perhaps the underscore-prefixed label (sequence? / tree?) needs to be described as subordinate to (or rooted at?) a "principal name". (Well, there are a couple of places where 'highest' was needed as > clarification.) > Stephane: "more/most general" otherwise: "closer/closest to the root" > > The -fix document doesn't stand alone, so it merely continues the > convention and does not re-explain it. > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
