On Aug 26, 2004, at 10:19 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
a. " Notice that the wildcard records must be repated" does not sound
right
to me (butenglish is not my first language, I may well be wrong).
I believe that it is correct and your revision is not precise enough.
Additionally extra " " before "Notice" should be removed.
Fixed.
b. first "for" should be removed
Fixed.
c. The last paragraph refers to dns server returning NXDOMAIN
...
At the same time I note that RFC2929 then set "NXDomain" as proper
name of the DNS RCODE 3...
I will look into the using the proper names for the DNS status codes.
But none of these documents are referenced from the protocol draft.
I'm not sure a normative reference is needed. Will depend on my
research for the above.
2. In section 2.1 ("Publishing"), the paragraph reads:
...
"domain file" is a vague reference, please at the very least replace
with "domain zone file".
Fixed.
Futher the section 2.1 ends as
...
I believe it should be added her also that use of the same record
type
for multiple puposes is discouraged.and wide use such practice poses
a danger to dns system.
I do not think the protocol document is the correct place to be
teaching best practices or making statements about DNS as a whole.
3. In section 2.1.1 "SPF DNS RR Type" paragraph says
"Sender-ID compliant mail originating zones MUST publish SPF2 type
records, and MAY publish TXT records that have identical content"
...
4. In next paragraph in 2.1.1 it says
"A Sender-ID compliant MTA MUST look up SPF2 RR type, it MAY lookup
TXT record at the same time, or wait for negative answer. SPF2 type
SHOULD be used if available"
There is already a lengthly thread on these paragraphs. Please see the
discussion starting at:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03491.html
There are technical issues being discussed that should be resolved
before we word-smith it.
- Mark