Hi Scott, > -----Original Message----- > From: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> > Sent: 18 February 2021 15:22 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis- > 04: (with COMMENT) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 6:57 AM > > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; Jasdip Singh <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext- > > rfc7483bis-04: (with COMMENT) > > > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not > click links > > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > > is safe. > > > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-04: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email > > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory > > paragraph, however.) > > [SAH] [snip] > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hi, > > > > Thank you for this update to RFC 7483. > > > > A couple of minor comments: > > > > In section 5.2. The Nameserver Object Class: It might be helpful to > warn the > > reader that some lines have been wrapped for display purposes. E.g. the > link > > value and href. Alternative, the approach/tooling from RFC 8792 could > be > > used. > > [SAH] I think I'd prefer to add a sentence somewhere earlier in the > document top note that some examples include wrapped lines. [RW]
That is fine. I think that you have a slightly bigger risk of readers potentially being confused by the example, whereas having the warning text right before the examples avoids that. But happy to leave this to your discretion. > > > It also wasn't clear to me whether the Appendix "Changes from RFC 7483" > > was going to be kept - there is no RFC editor note to suggest that it be > > removed. > > > > Generally, I think that have a short section explaining how a RFC has > changed > > from a previously published version is helpful. But if this is kept, > then I would > > try and condense this text down to just the list of important changes > from > > RFC 7483. > > [SAH] I'd like to address this using the same approach mentioned in my > last note. [RW] Same response also applies ;-) Regards, Rob > > Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
