In message <[email protected]>, at 18:12:34 on Sun, 26 Jan
2014, Pier Carlo Chiodi <[email protected]> writes
the paper should positively avoid the inclusion of
confusing examples such as domains operated by I* entities.
Within the document I used the example.com domain just to give readers
a name which was "neutral" and easy to remember;
I understand both of those criteria, but it's not a suitable one to use
for the reasons I've given.
my intention was not to use the example.com "technical background" such
as the real NSs operated by IANA.
Except your diagrams quote "a.iana-servers.net" as the NS, which is
where the potential for great confusion kicks in.
Anyway if you believe that it could confuse more expert readers
No, it confuses the inexpert readers (who ought to be our primary
audience - the experts know most of what's in the paper already).
it can be replaced with another, as suggested by Roland. In this case
maybe it could be useful to find as many sample domains as the cases
covered by the document, each domain reflecting the specific technical
configuration each time described. My only fear is that this may lead
to a more difficult reading for non-expert people (who are the real
audience).
I think a suitably-chosen example would be much less difficult for the
non-experts (they won't go away with the impression that IANA runs
everyone's NS).
Choosing an example isn't easy (if it was, I'd have suggested one
already). In a perfect world we'd have Ripe-NCC set up a dedicated one
with the desired characteristics for us. (Something like
target-domain.org, with three NS in different parts of the world, none
of them on I* networks.)
--
Roland Perry
