Hi Ralf, On Mon, 18 May 2026, at 10:16, Ralf Weber via Datatracker wrote: > > [snip] > > There is one nit that could be addressed. In section 6, Security > Considerations, the authors try to describe that configuration of TTL values > and the security considerations of those values are out of scope for the > document. Which is correct but how it is described was a bit confusing, which > might be because I'm not a native speaker, but as we want RFC to be readable I > propose making this a bit more explicit e.g: > > This document only concerns itself with the representation of configured TTL > values for domain and host objects. Security considerations for the actual > configured TTL values are out of scope. Readers may refer to Section 6 of > [RFC9803] for the security implications of configuring those values. > > It is a bit duplication, so maybe you can come up with a better wording, but > the original paragraph took me some time to parse.
Thanks for your review. Here is my proposed change to address your feedback, please let me know whether you think it is more readable for non-native English speakers: OLD: This document only concerns itself with the representation of configured TTL values for domain and host objects. Such configuration is out of scope. Readers may refer to Section 6 of [RFC9803] for the security implications of configuring those values. NEW: This document only concerns itself with the representation of configured TTL values for domain and host objects. The security implications of configuring those values is out of scope, but readers are referred to Section 6 of [RFC9803] for further information. G. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
