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

Dave Crocker <> Fri, 06 July 2018 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146A113104F for <>; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJiNL1sm3Yu1 for <>; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 957B913104A for <>; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w66Ffli5029550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:41:47 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1530891708; bh=7qZ+OFeZqTdv3vLZqZskM/Da9sdJLJvS8od4kjpcfYE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SB8duoJtYpaBFTE5ypFVdb9Ye5hXKFr/KyTv7WlZ8tKOSiw0WBUmgKwuQ6sCOoCMs F8MqGg06yXJURvsv8jYi+DveaHH8hSOGOYMjKJCHnPnstIuVA5SWO9+2ltRzsmMuvM ODnBirzDe5Xb3WCTaGrcsocmeph/0tkcPrY1EETc=
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>, Benno Overeinder <>
References: <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:39:14 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 15:39:23 -0000

Stephane, thanks for the comments.


On 7/6/2018 8:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:27:17PM +0200,
>   Benno Overeinder <> wrote
>   a message of 27 lines which said:
>> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
> I've read -10 and it seems OK. It solves a real issue, and does it
> properly.
> Editorial: I would prefer all occurrences of "right-most" to be
> replaced by "most general", to emphasize that it is not the position
> which matters, it is the closeness to the root.

So let's start by making sure we're seeking the same goal:  reader 
comprehension.  While I can imagine there is phrasing that is better 
than right-most, to achieve that comprehension, I believe 'most general' 
isn't it.  My impression has been that 'right-most' is the most common 
phrasing people have used over the years.

> Editorial: 'that is they are the "top" of a DNS branch, under a
> "parent" domain name.' I assume that "top" is used instead of "apex"
> because the sentence does not always refer to the top of a zone?

'zone' is almost certainly not the term to apply here.  While it 
encompasses a sub-tree, its boundary is not explicit in a domain name.

The DNS is a hierarchy.  I would have though 'top of a sub-branch' was 
therefore clear, concise and accurate.  Again, if there is other 
phrasing that is more established, we should use it.  But I'm not used 
to seeing 'apex', though it's certainly a more erudite choice...


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking