Re: [apps-discuss] [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 17 January 2012 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B4B21F86B2; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:44:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.758, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ohZqBpOGl7B; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F59E21F86AF; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:44:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so2616910lag.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:44:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UeGN0S82pyweof8Nwo4Sq863ukPKZ9wbqOCPv+o4dNc=; b=m6FlbMZ3mIYnItINSCldGqFUvvB8NKlVm5aaDFSIxWK0jKkEsIbizIZsHpQj7qrsLL sHXvpBVfrOfU+6VWP6i0CzntlIUhB8A4QLdgOZcbJoXhXNNANOoeTbI7iBfJHACRO6ge HStf6hZqr0WDkuXRiMz+tb4GAwFYBU1nI7WvU=
Received: by 10.112.48.193 with SMTP id o1mr4240087lbn.1.1326807840372; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:44:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.100.131 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:43:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C158A4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15851@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAF4+nEGMaWaAfWn+5RjJ56yrYoD5ckMgebyx3v666=mSSV5wKA@mail.gmail.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C158A4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:43:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEFyJrX8NhD72tgZBaqKK+8s6h8+G--iYjHxQwphiVJ7Lg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:07:30 -0800
Cc: "dnsext@ietf.org" <dnsext@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:44:02 -0000

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:
> Hi Donald,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:53 PM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode.all@tools.ietf.org; dnsext@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode
>>
>> > Section 2 identifies two status bits as part of this clarification
>> > document.  However, it also says explicitly that their definitions are
>> > unchanged from the documents that introduced them.  I'm curious then
>> > as to why they are included in this document at all; that is, what
>> > clarification is being provided?  Unlike Section 3, any ambiguity
>> > about their use has not been identified here.  If in fact there isn't
>> > any, I think this section can be removed.  If you like, you can
>> > introduce references to and overviews of their definitions in a new
>> > subsection of Section 1, since you do talk about them in Section 4.
>>
>> Well, the name of the document is "xNAME RCODE and Status Bits
>> Clarification". I'm not sure why it would make that much difference to
>> move Section 2 on status bits to a new subpart of Section 1. As you
>> say, they are further discussed in Section 4. It seems to me that
>> something can "clarify" with making any change. Given no objections in
>> the DNSEXT WG to this material, I am inclined to leave it in.
>
> My point is not so much the position of the text as its purpose.  You're right of course about the title, but it's not clear to me what is being clarified with respect to the status bits, since you explicitly say they are unchanged from their definitions.  That is, it seems to me deleting Section 2 entirely wouldn't remove anything from the document.
>
> If the purpose is merely to restate their definitions or refer to them so the Section 4 text is more meaningful, then informative references to the places where those are when you talk about them in Section 4 seems simpler than what's there now.

The purpose is to clarify as the title says. I do not accept your
position that text which does not change something therefore cannot be
a clarification.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> -MSK