On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:55:29PM +0000, P Vix wrote: > Please do not write anything that blurs or softens the clear language of > downwards-ness in 1034. If you can't keep the clear spirit and intent of the > existing document then please write nothing at all. >
I don't believe 1034 is anywhere near as clear as you are insisting it is; and the empirical evidence of that lack of clarity is the very thing you feel the need to recant. If the WG believes otherwise, then I think it is free to write the definition as it wishes, but only if it removes me as an editor of the terminology document. I do wish to make the definition clear, and I have no complaint where the definition might note that not every operator agrees about providing upward referrals (the text proffered already says that, I think). But I shall not include a change to the definition of referrals such that upward referrals are defined away. They exist, today, all over the Internet, and it would be extremely foolish lexicography to attempt to hide that. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
