Hi there, authors (and WG),
Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read.
I do have a few comments/nits; addressing these now should help the IETF LC
and IESG evaluation go more smoothly.
Please SHOUT loudly once you've had a chance to address these, and I'll
start IETF LC.
Questions / issues / comments:
1: Can you please update the Abstract to clarify *how* the document updates
RFC1035?
I think that something like:
"This document updates RFC1035 by {clarifying|specifying} that the QDCOUNT
parameter of a DNS Query must not be greater than one." or similar should
work.
The purpose of an abstract is so that readers know if they need to read the
rest of the document - if someone is chasing all of the updates to RFC1035
because they are interested in e.g the TTL, they can skip over this
document.
Huh, turns out I lied — I don't have "a few comments/nits", I only have the
one… but well, this is a template, so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Thank you again; I know that making edits to address nits can be annoying,
but we are expecting many people to read and review the document, and so
having it polished is important and polite (also, once people start
commenting on nits, they seem to continue :-) )
W
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
