On 12 July 2018 at 02:58, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 7/6/2018 8:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Editorial: I would prefer all occurrences of "right-most" to be
>> replaced by "most general", to emphasize that it is not the position
>> which matters, it is the closeness to the root.
>> Editorial: 'that is they are the "top" of a DNS branch, under a
>> "parent" domain name.' I assume that "top" is used instead of "apex"
>> because the sentence does not always refer to the top of a zone?
> So, this turned into a niggling 'thing' for me and produced a collection
> of small changes.
> The basic model now is to introduce the issue early in the document and
> dispatch it once, and then use a single term for the rest of the document,
> without all the distractingly redundant clarifications.
> So there's now text in attrleaf that explains about hierarchy, top,
> highest, and the original presentation convention of right, but noting that
> other presentations are possible.

IMO unnecessary.
This will inevitably either overlap or conflict with the draft RFC7719-bis
DNS terminology document.
Better to use already battle-hardened terminology throughout and add
RFC7719-bis citation.

> It then declares the term 'global' as referring to the node name of
> interest and only uses that term in the rest of the document.

"global" does not tick the right box for me.
Perhaps the underscore-prefixed label (sequence? / tree?) needs to be
described as subordinate to (or rooted at?) a "principal name".

  (Well, there are a couple of places where 'highest' was needed as
> clarification.)

Stephane: "more/most general"
otherwise: "closer/closest to the root"

> The -fix document doesn't stand alone, so it merely continues the
> convention and does not re-explain it.
DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to