Re: (short version) Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uni

> On 5 mar 2015, at 17:25, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> On a separate topic, I'm not sure that the second paragraph of
> the Introduction is correct.  Historically (sic) and as far as I
> am aware, DDDS has been used heavily only in conjunction with
> ENUM.  It also takes me three or four readings each time I
> encounter it to figure out what "looking up URIs given a
> hostname" means (noting that, for some versions of DNS
> terminology, a hypothetical domain (owner, node) with only NAPTR
> records is _not_ a "hostname").  Perhaps something more like the
> following would be both more true and easier to understand:
>
>       Historically, uses of the DNS to map a domain name to a
>       URL have relied on the NAPTR RRTYPEs and then on the
>       DDDS[RFC3401] application framework with the DNS as a
>       database as specified in RFC 3404 [RFC3404].
Thanks.

> The following sentence isn't clear, which doesn't help.
> Probably what is intended more like:
>
>       Among the implications of that usage are inability to
>       select interesting and relevant NAPTR records from those
>       that match the query.
What about:

   Historically, uses of the DNS to map a domain name to a URL have
   relied on the NAPTR RRTYPEs and then on the DDDS [RFC3401]
   application framework with the DNS as a database as specified in RFC
   3404 [RFC3404].  This has a number of implications such as the fact
   the RRSet returned will contain all URIs "connected" with the owner,
   and not only the ones related to a specific service.


> There are several other editorial issues (e.g., "Querying for
> URI resource records is not replacing querying..." later in the
> Introduction and "Applications MUST know the specific service to
> prepend..." in Section 3 (one cannot prepend "a service", only
> an identifier of one)), but I hope we can leave them to the RFC
> Editor to identify and sort out.
Yeah, as you know John, my english is not the best... :-(

> Finally, given these discussions, I believe the Acknowledgements
> section probably needs review and updating.
Now:

8.  Acknowledgements

   Ideas on how to split the two different kind of queries "What
   services exists for this domain name" and "What is the URI for this
   service" came from Scott Bradner and Lawrence Conroy.  Other people
   that have contributed to this document include Richard Barnes, Leslie
   Daigle, Victor Dukhovni, Olafur Gudmundsson, Philip Hallam-Baker, Ted
   Hardie, Sam Hartman, Evan Hunt, John klensin, Peter Koch, Eliot Lear,
   Andy Newton, Mark Nottingham, Penn Pfautz, Jinmei Tatuya, Willem
   Toorop, Nico Williams.

My apologies if I am still missing people. Please let me know if you should be 
added (or if you think someone should be added).

   Patrik

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail