Thanks Paul, > First: we were probably sloppy in the use of the word "answer". In > many cases, that should be "response".
Thanks for clarifying it, and don't get me wrong, it's not only this draft that had this -- many academic papers do the same (including mine) -- but since this is a terminology doc, it's better to get it right here. So the next docs follow it. > The response is the entire DNS message that is sent in reply to a > question. Great. Do you plan to define it in the document as well? > However, in your GitHub comment, you suggest that an "answer" is > both the contents of the Answer section *and* the contents of the > Authority section. Why would the contents of the Authority section be > considered an answer? That was just a clarifying question; I was in doubt myself. So in that case the _response_ then does not contain an answer -- just the authority. Maybe this is clear for DNSOP fellows, but for many researchers this may not be. > Also, in searching for "answer" in the document, I find that most of > the > uses are as a verb, which is unambiguous. >It's only ambiguous when > the > word "answer" is used as a noun. Yes, you are right. >Unfortunately, there are some places > where "answer" as a noun is used in material we quote from other RFCs, > and we cannot change those. True. Which supports the need for a terminology rfc :) thanks, giovane _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
