Hi Russ, I'm happy with the draft in its current form. I do have a few very minor typographic nits:
1) section 4: I think the "not" should be capitalized in, "They MUST not remove leading components to search for more general DNS SRV RRs." 2) section 5: It's probably quite obvious, despite being implicit, but I'd feel better if the bullet point, "The server provides these services over UDP" explicitly stated "Rx over UDP". 3) section 5: "<tt> is its TTL" should read "<ttl> is its TTL" -Tom On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a last call for any further feedback, corrections, or comments on > draft-allbery-afs-srv-records-01 before I ask about advancing it as an RFC > independent submission. The current text is available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-allbery-afs-srv-records > > Please send any further comments before December 14th. If I have not > heard anything by that point that seems to question consensus on this > document, I will approach the Application Area ADs and ask their opinion > about whether to proceed as an independent submission as an informational > RFC or whether they feel this should be standards track for any reason. > (I suspect that informational is correct since AFS is not an IETF > protocol, but I want to ask just in case.) > > -- > Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > > _______________________________________________ > AFS3-standardization mailing list > [email protected] > http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization > -- Tom Keiser [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
