Hi Richard, this comment from you was the only non-editorial comment we received during WGLC:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:57:10PM -0500, Y. Richard Yang wrote: > I read the document and think it is ready. Here are some minor comments: ... > - Sec. 3.2: for the U-NAPTR example, I am not an expert on U-NAPTR, but > here is an example from rfc2915: > > www.foo.com. > ;; order pref flags service regexp replacement > IN NAPTR 100 100 "s" "http+I2R" "" _http._tcp.foo.com. > IN NAPTR 100 100 "s" "ftp+I2R" "" _ftp._tcp.foo.com. > > > Hence, for the examples in Sec. 3.2, does it make sense to follow the same, > e.g., instead of ALTO:http, but http+ALTO? Also, I am not sure, for the > example, return is "". Again, I am not an expert on the subject, and hence, > my question may be misunderstanding or my lacking of background. RFC 2915 defines the NAPTR RR, but as stated in sec. 3.2 of our draft, we are using U-NAPTR per RFC 4848. We believe that our specification follows the rules and also the spirit of RFC 4848, but maybe you want to chack again? Thanks Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
