Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-10 Thread Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Hi, Dave,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:52 PM Dave Crocker  wrote:

> On 10/10/2018 4:38 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > i can live with that.
> >
> >>
> >> which is one heck of a lot of "resource record types" in the same, short
> >> paragraph.
> >
> > truth hurts.
>
> mumble. drat.  that's two in favor, which for this topic rates as
> overwhelming consensus.
>
> sigh.  k.  if you insist...
>

Oh, it's a No-Objection comment. I would only ask that people do the right
thing, but you'll know what that is ;-)

Spencer


>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-10 Thread Dave Crocker

On 10/10/2018 4:38 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:

i can live with that.



which is one heck of a lot of "resource record types" in the same, short
paragraph.


truth hurts.


mumble. drat.  that's two in favor, which for this topic rates as 
overwhelming consensus.


sigh.  k.  if you insist...

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-10 Thread Paul Vixie




Dave Crocker wrote:


which I believe is fully clear, given that there does not appear to me
to be any candidate for intepreting 'one' other than 'resource record
type', but worse, making the change you suggest would produce:

DNS data semantics have been limited to the specification of particular
resource record types, on the expectation that new resource record types
would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of new resource
record types has proven extremely challenging, over the life of the DNS,
with significant adoption and use barriers.


i can live with that.



which is one heck of a lot of "resource record types" in the same, short
paragraph.


truth hurts.

--
P Vixie

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-10 Thread Dave Crocker

On 10/10/2018 3:40 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: 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.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/



--
COMMENT:
--

This is a DNS specification that is fairly clear to people who know a little
about DNS, but not a lot. You win.

This text

DNS data semantics have been
limited to the specification of particular resource record types, on
the expectation that new ones would be added as needed.

would have been clearer for me, if it said "new resource record types would be
added as needed".  "new ones" was vague enough to break my train of thought.



Long day, late in the afternoon, lots of comments preceding yours, and I 
appear to be approaching a threshold of pissiness (which I figure you 
are a far more pleasant target of than any number of the day's 
predecessors.)


So I'm going to nitpick your nitpicking...

The current text is:


DNS data semantics have been limited to the
specification of particular resource record types, on the expectation that new 
ones
would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of new resource record 
types has
proven extremely challenging, over the life of the DNS, with significant 
adoption and
use barriers.


which I believe is fully clear, given that there does not appear to me 
to be any candidate for intepreting 'one' other than 'resource record 
type', but worse, making the change you suggest would produce:


 DNS data semantics have been limited to the specification of 
particular resource record types, on the expectation that new resource 
record types would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of 
new resource record types has proven extremely challenging, over the 
life of the DNS, with significant adoption and use barriers.


which is one heck of a lot of "resource record types" in the same, short 
paragraph.


grrr...

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop