Ben,
Are you referring to the title ("Update to the DNAME...")? Then yes, that
could be confusing - that was missed in the revision.
Would trimming the title to the shorter "DNAME Redirection in the DNS" fix
that? It's the simplest fix.
Scott
On Jun 24, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> This version resolves all of my comments, with the exception that while the
> text now says the draft updates DNAME, the header still says it obsoletes RFC
> 2672. Is that the intent?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Scott Rose wrote:
>
>> FYI:
>> A new version (-23) of the dname-bis draft has been posted with the two
>> sections re-added (resolver algorithm and examples of DNAME use). I haven't
>> heard any comments from the DNSEXT WG on it, but it was only just posted.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the response! Comments below, eliding the bits I think need no
>>> further comment.
>>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Scott Rose wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That would resolve my concern, if it fits with the intent of the work group.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for the nits:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Yes, will correct.
>>>>
>>>> -- ..., 7th paragraph: "...replaced with the word "DELETED"."
>>>>
>>>> Won't that just leave the word "deleted" hanging on page without
>>>> explanation? Wouldn't it be better to just simply delete it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, but I think the logic was that if there is some text there (just
>>>> something), it can be cleanly referenced (i.e. "DELETED [RFCXXXX]")if
>>>> someone is making a revised version of the RFC for some purpose. Purely
>>>> deleting it accomplishes the task, but this provides a good "hook" for a
>>>> paper trail.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay. On reflection, it's not like we really render the updates the old RFC
>>> documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gen-art mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>>>
>>
>> ===================================
>> Scott Rose
>> NIST
>> [email protected]
>> +1 301-975-8439
>> Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671
>> http://www.dnsops.gov/
>> ===================================
>>
>
===================================
Scott Rose
NIST
[email protected]
+1 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671
http://www.dnsops.gov/
===================================
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
