IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] comments on dnsop-qname-minimisation-02

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Thu, 12 March 2015 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162E81A923A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VJO_zhRprVLF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com (mail-qc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AFB51A9176 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcrw7 with SMTP id w7so17510289qcr.8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Mxlsj6H2cD5nebTaGp9j0IKH0AAPrqHrwAYJHMak2UM=; b=kNwY5GmFqqhFGnMDZNiF3KnTyH1v+tV4rsZ5meyf+FT5DYECLkv+KGeykDr7KCSwK5 3wAMWHW42DTwChfdXSRw5xkdccc994AjeX1ncfs0gncojSce8QnM9BrvQJfqlCrNFrpY 5ZCTwUR+69lCXk8XpHKSMJb4/KV0sLeRRigdyxiF347vV6ESz+dZKAYYZ+WcWyGPfR9y mc9K6/WXsT2vhh8sIHEsl1OrmPQHgcuOdPOJQPOalD5Pq0TUEthJfgjJSNJw05MoFuoM zjGTMrbFysUHDw1wO8fo9FgCfrqA0XwKYVSYClLSPJvnxzmqyU9NM61VthaNwa/zT9Ee TGuQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.227.71 with SMTP id iz7mr6917029qcb.0.1426160321942; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.94.105 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <m21tkulb79.wl-Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
References: <CAHPuVdW6KUongqRBKE8zwK4By=ocJRpS=2MYpq1tYcPjYq6amw@mail.gmail.com> <20150311160258.GA524@nic.fr> <21E44846-EAA1-4518-A4F7-20304DE78FBC@vpnc.org> <m21tkulb79.wl-Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 07:38:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdUAAOYxbfrauWYNAwT=0csOzdA=_fbV=jFJxofF1nYskA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
To: Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134abe861dd50051115d339"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/OwSI94O7q_mNHLSPyAnPpfKAS54>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] comments on dnsop-qname-minimisation-02
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: shuque@gmail.com
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:38:44 -0000

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>
wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:50:07 +0000,
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > >> I'd prefer the simpler "The problem statement is described in ..".
> > >> The term "exposed" in my mind carries a more sensational connotation,
> > >> but I might be nitpicking.
> > >
> > > Advice from english writers here?
> >
> > +1 to Shumon: "exposed" is more sensational, and not appropriate here.
>
>   Indeed, "exposed" is inappropriate; so is "described".
>
>   Reference to _describing_ the problem statement (perhaps as
>   "elegant" or "clumsy"; "long-winded" or "concise") isn't what's
>   needed here.
>

Good point.


>
>   I suggest any one of "presented", "declared", or "specified".
>
>
I like 'specified' best. We should use that.

I'm neutral about 'presented'.

And I don't like 'declared', which sounds like an authoritarian decree
handed down by the high priests of protocol development!

Shumon Huque

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email