Hi Chris, Thanks for the review!
On 19 Mar 2024, at 03:28, Chris Box <chris.box.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is a little cart-before-horse in having the reasoning occur after the > conclusion. But I can see the benefit in having a very clear statement up > front in the document. Some people only read the beginning. The document was changed to be like this because the working group found the survey of current standards to be a bit of a distraction from the advice. The purpose is after all to clarify the standards, not to enjoy a voyage through them. > I have one suggestion for improvement, which you can modify or ignore as you > wish. Some people only read the title, particularly if they see it as part of > a citation. And if that's all you see, it's not a clear message at all. "In > the DNS, QDCOUNT is (usually) One" tells me nothing I don't already know. Yes > it is usually one. However if you were to change the title to something like > "In DNS queries, QDCOUNT must be <= 1" then I learn all I need to know from > simply the title. To me, this is a win. Personally I think we do need people to read a little bit beyond the title if they are going to extract useful meaning from the document. If we accept that to be a reasonable goal then perhaps having a title that seems slightly intriguing is better than a title that is 100% spoiler. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
