Hi Paul,
I leave the decision about the update to the wg and responsible AD,
however, if you decide to keep it, maybe you can just rephrase a bit to
make sure that it is very clear the definition is this doc is the
current one.
Mirja
On 26.08.2018 03:11, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Thanks for the review!
On Aug 24, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
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.
The WG thought that this is "updating 2308" and wanted that pointed out
clearly, but if the IESG thinks it is not really updating, we can remove that designation
at the top. Please let us know.
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])
Agree.
2) s/Section 4.3.1 of of [RFC1034] /Section 4.3.1 of [RFC1034]/
Of of course that is what we meant.
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]. "
Agree.
4) Why is there (a) and (b) for the definition of Origin?
Because there are two different definitions for two different contexts. We'll
make this clearer.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
