On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:40 AM, Roni Even <ron.even....@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. In section 2 the term DNAME is mentioned and while CNAME is specified > DNAME > is not (maybe reference RFC6672?)
We have been trying to use this document to define terms. In the case of DNAME, it doesn't appear to actually mean anything (at least, I couldn't find an RFC that said what the D was for). I suspect it was the early DNS folks being cute, something along the lines of "D is bigger than C". Having said that, we will add a reference without adding an explanation. > 2. In section 5 "Most resorece record " typo. Thanks! > 3. This is more a comment and since I did not follow the progress of the > document I am not sure the motivation here. Reading the text I noticed that in > the definition of referrals in section 4 the text include also what looks to > me > like logic starting from the third paragraph. I was wondering why is it here > and not in one of the standard track documents and referenced here. I saw that > this is a big change from RFC7719. Yes, that all came from the extensive WG discussion. You are correct that there is not an RFC that says "here are the kinds of referrals and what they mean", but there was a strong desire that we define "referrals" because that term is used in many other documents in many contexts. Someone could (maybe SHOULD) write a "DNS referrals" RFC, and the terminology-ter document (if such a thing comes into existence) could rip out this section and refer to it. The main thing here is that this document doesn't change an existing definition of "referrals". We just kinda realized that we had to get it written down the first time. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
