> On 26 Oct 2016, at 15:59, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Saying "The proposals here might be adapted or extended in future to be used > for recursive clients and authoritative servers" should be sufficient to say > "it's not like we didn't think about it". If people really want to have the > charter discussion in this long-lived RFC, at least change the second clause > to "but this application was out of scope for the Working Group charter at > the time this document was finished”.
I’m fine with this re-wording. > >>> Section 1: "How a DNS client can verify that any given credential matches >>> the domain name obtained for a DNS server." "obtained" is somewhat >>> difficult here because there are many ways that the name is determined. >>> Proposal: "matches the domain name of the DNS server”. <snip> > > That would be good, yes. But "obtained" still sounds like it might come from > the DNS itself, not from configuration or DHCP. Well it could come from DNS via a SRV lookup. Do you prefer acquired/determine/derive? > >>> Section 4.3.1: "Bootstrapping" is not a widely-understood term. >> >> Really? A quick Google finds RFC4173 from 2005 which has Bootstrapping in >> the title. > > "Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" is a difficult idiom for people > even if English is their first language. > >> It would be nice to keep it unless there are general objections as it more >> accurately describes the specific issue addressed in that section. > > In this specific case, it's more "chicken or egg" than "bootstrap" because > you actually do first use the unsecured DNS. Maybe just "Startup" for the > title and leave bootstrap in the body text (which does describe the problem > quite well). OK - will change the title. Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
