Re: [DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

On Feb 9, 2023, at 16:27, Tim Wicinski wrote:On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:19 PM Paul Wouters wrote:On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> I have a deeper question on using "ext" for extension - it feels like an  > abbreviation which doesn't feel useful.  But I'm no expert on ma

Re: [DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:19 PM Paul Wouters wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > Big fan of this document and feel it is good. I have only one small nit: > > > > See also "domain name" in [RFC8499]. > > > > > > Should this not be "Domain name" (per 8499) ? > > > > I have

Re: [DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, Tim Wicinski wrote: Big fan of this document and feel it is good. I have only one small nit: See also "domain name" in [RFC8499]. Should this not be "Domain name"  (per 8499) ? I have a deeper question on using "ext" for extension - it feels like an  abbreviation wh

Re: [DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

Big fan of this document and feel it is good. I have only one small nit: See also "domain name" in [RFC8499]. Should this not be "Domain name" (per 8499) ? I have a deeper question on using "ext" for extension - it feels like an abbreviation which doesn't feel useful. But I'm no expert on mat

[DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

This may be of interest to dnsop folks, too. At least two of the terms included in this dictionary ("Domain Name" and "NS") are commonly used in DNS specifications. Scott > -Original Message- > From: regext On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 9:40 AM > To: REGEXT