Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-06 Thread Petr Špaček
On 6.2.2018 17:13, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 6 Feb 2018, at 8:04, Petr Špaček wrote: > >> On 6.2.2018 13:22, Tony Finch wrote: >>> A. Schulze wrote: Yes, "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-" is more descriptive and specific. I also prefer that longer variant. >>>

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-06 Thread Paul Hoffman
On 6 Feb 2018, at 8:31, Joe Abley wrote: Some other RFC numbers were clearly reserved for specific documents in the past (e.g. see RFC 2821/2, obsoleting RFC 821/2) but perhaps those were special cases. It was special, and very much regretted by the RFC Editor at the time. This badly

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-06 Thread Joe Abley
On 6 Feb 2018, at 11:04, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 6.2.2018 13:22, Tony Finch wrote: >> A. Schulze wrote: >> >>> Yes, "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-" is more descriptive and specific. >>> I also prefer that longer variant. >> >> Yes, more friendly for

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-06 Thread joel jaeggli
On 2/6/18 8:13 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 6 Feb 2018, at 8:04, Petr Špaček wrote: > >> On 6.2.2018 13:22, Tony Finch wrote: >>> A. Schulze wrote: Yes, "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-" is more descriptive and specific. I also prefer that longer variant. >>>

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-06 Thread Paul Hoffman
On 6 Feb 2018, at 8:04, Petr Špaček wrote: On 6.2.2018 13:22, Tony Finch wrote: A. Schulze wrote: Yes, "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-" is more descriptive and specific. I also prefer that longer variant. Yes, more friendly for web searches if someone is wondering

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-06 Thread Petr Špaček
On 6.2.2018 13:22, Tony Finch wrote: > A. Schulze wrote: >> >> Yes, "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-" is more descriptive and specific. >> I also prefer that longer variant. > > Yes, more friendly for web searches if someone is wondering about weird > queries. Bonus points

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-06 Thread Patrick Mevzek
On 2018-02-05 14:18 -0500, Geoff Huston wrote: > I thought this was due to some concern over the wording in RFC (some > IDN > RFC whose number I can’t recall right now!) over a comment that the UC label > should not contain the starting sequence " - -” RFC5890 point 2.3.1 To facilitate

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-06 Thread Tony Finch
A. Schulze wrote: > > Yes, "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-" is more descriptive and specific. > I also prefer that longer variant. Yes, more friendly for web searches if someone is wondering about weird queries. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-06 Thread A. Schulze
Paul Hoffman: I think Tony's idea is likely fine, but I also think kskroll-sentinel-is-ta- is perfectly fine as well. Yes, "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-" is more descriptive and specific. I also prefer that longer variant. Andreas ___ DNSOP