Reviewer: Catherine Meadows
Review result: Has Nits
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors.
Document editors an
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 23:17, Catherine Meadows via Datatracker
wrote:
> Nits: There are a lot of unexplained acronyms, especially at the beginning:
> RR, SOA, NS RR, RDATA, PTR, and so on. These should be spelled out the first
> time they are used at the document.
Most of these are the formal
Joe Abley wrote on 2022-12-09 14:59:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 23:17, Catherine Meadows via Datatracker
mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:
Nits: There are a lot of unexplained acronyms, especially at the
beginning:
RR, SOA, NS RR, RDATA, PTR, and so on. These should be spelled out the
first
tim
On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 00:04, Paul Vixie
wrote:
> should be Rdata or RData but never RDATA.
Also it turns out that RFC 8499 is probably not sufficient as a reference since
it doesn't include definitions for most of those RRTypes, or RDATA, or Rdata,
or RData. But I think the general idea mig
