I gave this a once-over. 1. Introduction > Generally only one temporary DNS record is sufficient for > proving domain ownership, although sometimes the DNS record must be > kept in the zone to prove continued ownership of the domain.
I understand what it's trying to say, but I think "a" instead of "one" would be better. "One" sounds like there will ever be exactly one temporary DNS record in the zone to prove ownership. Which is probably not true if you need to prove ownership to multiple services. Therefore: old: Generally only one temporary DNS record is sufficient new: Generally a temporary DNS record is sufficient 3. Common Pitfalls > If the size of the response is large enough that it does not fit into > a single DNS UDP packet (UDP being the most common DNS transport > today), this may result in fragmentation That's not correct. If the response does not fit into a single DNS UDP packet, it's not a valid response and can't be send. New: If the size of the response is large enough that it does not fit into a single IP packet this may result in fragmentation > Other possible issues may occur. If a TXT record (or any other > record type) is designed to be place at the same domain name... s/place/placed/ 5.2. TXT Record > when the DNS administrator receives the information, especially to > consumers who are not DNS experts. s/to consumers/from consumers/ 5.2.1. Metadata For Expiry > Providers MUST provide clear instructions I don't think there would be an interoperability issue or the protocol would fail when providers provide unclear instructions or no instructions at all, so: s/MUST/SHOULD/ I'd like to see a definition / reference for the time format. xkcd 1179 is relevant... -- In my defence, I have been left unsupervised. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
