Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

[Dick Franks <[e-mail]>]

On 10 July 2018 at 15:32, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 7/9/2018 2:35 PM, Dick Franks wrote:

  >8
>
>>
>>   <t>If a public specification calls for the use of an
>> underscore-prefixed domain name,
>> the underscored name closest to the root MUST be entered into this
>> registry.
>>
>>
> Thanks.  I've added some tweakage to your text:
>
>  <t>If a public specification calls for use of an _underscore-prefixed
>    domain node name, the 'global' underscored name -- the name that is
>    closest to the DNS root -- MUST be entered into this registry.
>    Historically, this is the right-most name that is begins with an
>    underscore.</t>
>

You just seem to have reintroduced yet more confusing and redundant
verbiage.

The whole point of my suggested text was to remove the extraneous
directional adjectives
like "right-most", "highest-level", "top-most", "global", etc., which we
have already established
are not as concise or unambiguous as we might have wished.

Also,  "domain name" is the recognised and recommended usage per RFC7719
and the latest
DNS Terminology draft.

A reference to RFC7719 or its successor would be sufficient for readers
unfamiliar with DNS
terminology, if indeed there are any.

As for _underscore-prefixed,  there are enough examples in the document for
even the most
intellectually challenged reader to grasp what underscore-prefixed domain
names look like.
Idiosyncratic usage reflects badly on the document production standards of
the organisation.



> > (Editorial:  The word underscore does not itself need to be
> > underscore-prefixed)
>