Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 10/10/2018 3:40 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This is a DNS specification that is fairly clear to people who know a little
> about DNS, but not a lot. You win.
> 
> This text
> 
>     DNS data semantics have been
>     limited to the specification of particular resource record types, on
>     the expectation that new ones would be added as needed.
> 
> would have been clearer for me, if it said "new resource record types would be
> added as needed".  "new ones" was vague enough to break my train of thought.


Long day, late in the afternoon, lots of comments preceding yours, and I 
appear to be approaching a threshold of pissiness (which I figure you 
are a far more pleasant target of than any number of the day's 
predecessors.)

So I'm going to nitpick your nitpicking...

The current text is:

> DNS data semantics have been limited to the
> specification of particular resource record types, on the expectation that new ones
> would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of new resource record types has
> proven extremely challenging, over the life of the DNS, with significant adoption and
> use barriers.

which I believe is fully clear, given that there does not appear to me 
to be any candidate for intepreting 'one' other than 'resource record 
type', but worse, making the change you suggest would produce:

      DNS data semantics have been limited to the specification of 
particular resource record types, on the expectation that new resource 
record types would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of 
new resource record types has proven extremely challenging, over the 
life of the DNS, with significant adoption and use barriers.

which is one heck of a lot of "resource record types" in the same, short 
paragraph.

grrr...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net