Re: [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11

["Giovane C. M. Moura" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Paul,

> First: we were probably sloppy in the use of the word "answer". In
> many cases, that should be "response".

Thanks for clarifying it, and don't get me wrong,  it's not only this
draft that had this --  many academic papers do the same (including
mine) -- but since this is a terminology doc, it's better to get it
right here.  So the next docs follow it.

> The response is the entire DNS message that is sent in reply to a
> question.
Great. Do you plan to define it in the document as well?

> However, in your GitHub comment, you suggest that an "answer" is
> both the contents  of the Answer section *and* the contents of the
> Authority section. Why would the contents of the Authority section be
> considered an answer?

That was just a clarifying question; I was in doubt myself.
So in that case the _response_ then does not contain an answer -- just
the authority.

Maybe this is clear for DNSOP fellows, but for  many researchers this
may not be.

> Also, in searching for "answer" in the document, I find that most of > the
> uses are as a verb, which is unambiguous. >It's only ambiguous when > the
> word "answer" is used as a noun.

Yes, you are right.

 >Unfortunately, there are some places
> where "answer" as a noun is used in material we quote from other RFCs,
> and we cannot change those.

True. Which supports the need for a terminology rfc :)

thanks,

giovane