Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm actually not sure if this doc really updates RFC2308 because the two definitions (Forwarder and QNAME) only say someting like "it is used differently today" but seem not really to actually update the existing definitions. I would recommend to either not use the "update" tag or clarify these definitions. Thanks for the clarification added based on the TSV-ART review (and thanks Allison!). (Potential) nits: 1) OLD: A set of resource records with the same label, class and type, but with different data. (Definition from [RFC2181]) MAYBE use quotes here at least for the last part of the sentence: A set of resource records "with the same label, class and type, but with different data." (Definition from [RFC2181]) 2) s/Section 4.3.1 of of [RFC1034] /Section 4.3.1 of [RFC1034]/ 3) Probably the first sentence should be removed: "The idea of a primary master is only used by [RFC2136], and is considered archaic in other parts of the DNS. The idea of a primary master is only used in [RFC1996] and [RFC2136]. " 4) Why is there (a) and (b) for the definition of Origin? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
