On Aug 30, 2018, at 3:08 AM, Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> wrote: > General: > > The document seems to omit a definition for the term "class," although it is > used in many places an clearly has a very precise meaning in DNS parlance. It > would be nice to see one added, as I got a bit confused when I hit the > definition for "Class independent" in section 5 and realized that I'd been > conflating "RR type" with "Class" -- and couldn't find guidance in this > document > to clarify the difference.
Good catch. I'll ask my co-authors if they want to add a trivial one: Class: A class "identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol" (Quoted from <xref target="RFC1034"/>, Section 3.6) "The DNS tags all data with a class as well as the type, so that we can allow parallel use of different formats for data of type address." (Quoted from <xref target="RFC1034"/>, Section 2.2) > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §2: > >> Multicast DNS: "Multicast DNS (mDNS) provides the ability to perform >> DNS-like operations on the local link in the absence of any >> conventional Unicast DNS server. > > This definition seems to be a little oversimplified in light of the mechanisms > described by draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid and draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay. Agree, but neither of those drafts gave much explanation of how their proxying and forwarding affected RFC 6762. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §5: > >> Master file: "Master files are text files that contain RRs in text >> form. Since the contents of a zone can be expressed in the form >> of a list of RRs a master file is most often used to define > > Nit: "...list of RRs, a master..." > ^ > We were pretty strict about not making editorial fixes to quotations from source RFCs. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §5: >> Owner: The domain name where a RR is found ([RFC1034], Section 3.6). > > Nit: "...an RR..." (see RFC 7322 §1, CMOS 10.9) There too. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §6: > >> 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]. > > These sentences seem redundant and partially contradictory. I suspect the > first > one should be removed. Yep. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §6: > >> Privacy-enabling DNS server: "A DNS server that implements DNS over >> TLS [RFC7858] and may optionally implement DNS over DTLS >> [RFC8094]." (Quoted from [RFC8310], Section 2) > > This definition seems incomplete in light of the mechanism defined in > draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https. Agree, but it is what we have as a quotation. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Acknowledgements: > >> The following is the Acknowledgements for RFC 7719. Additional >> acknowledgements may be added as this draft is worked on. > > This feels out of date. Consider removing. > Good catch, done. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
