Sorry for the late response--I just got back from vacation.
Yes, I was referring to the title and also the last paragraph of section 1.
Your proposed change, along with something similar in section 1, would IMHO
resolve the issue.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jun 27, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Scott Rose wrote:
Ben,
Are you referring to the title ("Update to the DNAME...")? Then yes, that
could be confusing - that was missed in the revision.
Would trimming the title to the shorter "DNAME Redirection in the DNS" fix
that? It's the simplest fix.
Scott
On Jun 24, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Thanks!
This version resolves all of my comments, with the exception that while the
text now says the draft updates DNAME, the header still says it obsoletes
RFC 2672. Is that the intent?
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Scott Rose wrote:
FYI:
A new version (-23) of the dname-bis draft has been posted with the two
sections re-added (resolver algorithm and examples of DNAME use). I haven't
heard any comments from the DNSEXT WG on it, but it was only just posted.
Scott
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Thanks for the response! Comments below, eliding the bits I think need no
further comment.
On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Scott Rose wrote:
Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting
it?
That would resolve my concern, if it fits with the intent of the work
group.
As for the nits:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell <ben(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com>
wrote:
[...]
Yes, will correct.
-- ..., 7th paragraph: "...replaced with the word "DELETED"."
Won't that just leave the word "deleted" hanging on page without
explanation? Wouldn't it be better to just simply delete it?
Maybe, but I think the logic was that if there is some text there (just
something), it can be cleanly referenced (i.e. "DELETED [RFCXXXX]")if
someone is making a revised version of the RFC for some purpose. Purely
deleting it accomplishes the task, but this provides a good "hook" for a
paper trail.
Okay. On reflection, it's not like we really render the updates the old
RFC documents.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
===================================
Scott Rose
NIST
scott(_dot_)rose(_at_)nist(_dot_)gov
+1 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671
http://www.dnsops.gov/
===================================
===================================
Scott Rose
NIST
scott(_dot_)rose(_at_)nist(_dot_)gov
+1 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671
http://www.dnsops.gov/
===================================
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf