> I think Olafur's point is a good one, but I'm unhappy with the prose. > Some suggested changes below.
Same here. Nits: > There are to mechanisms to provide authenticated proof of s/to/two/ > Each mechanism includes a list of all the RRTYPEs present at the s/includes/stores/ > > The clear text version has its one RRtype for negative answer, Clear > > text one uses NSEC record and the obfuscated one used NSEC3. > > I didn't know how to rephrase that, because if I understand it I think > what I understand is wrong (but that's obviously not the case, so > probably I don't understand it). I think he meant "each version has its own RRtype". Suggested change: "Each mechanism uses a specific RRTYPE to store information about the RRTYPEs present at the name: the clear-text mechanism uses NSEC, and the obfuscated-data mechanism uses NSEC3." It may also be worth mentioning that the two mechanisms are usually referred to by the names of their corresponding RR types. -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
