Thanks Evan and Andrew fot translating my thoughts into better prose.
Evan, you captures my meaning.
Olafur
On 20/02/2010 4:31 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
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 -- [email protected]
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
