Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review!

On Aug 24, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'm actually not sure if this doc really updates RFC2308 because the two
> definitions (Forwarder and QNAME) only say someting like "it is used
> differently today" but seem not really to actually update the existing
> definitions. I would recommend to either not use the "update" tag or clarify
> these definitions.

The WG thought that this is "updating 2308" and wanted that pointed out clearly, but if the IESG thinks it is not really updating, we can remove that designation at the top. Please let us know.

> Thanks for the clarification added based on the TSV-ART review (and thanks
> Allison!).
> 
> (Potential) nits:
> 1) OLD:
> A set of resource records with the same label, class and
>      type, but with different data.  (Definition from [RFC2181])
> MAYBE use quotes here at least for the last part of the sentence:
> A set of resource records "with the same label, class and
>      type, but with different data."  (Definition from [RFC2181])

Agree.

> 2) s/Section 4.3.1 of of [RFC1034] /Section 4.3.1 of [RFC1034]/

Of of course that is what we meant.

> 3) Probably the first sentence should be removed:
> "The idea of a primary master is only used by [RFC2136],
>      and is considered archaic in other parts of the DNS.
> 
>      The idea of a primary master is only used in [RFC1996] and
>      [RFC2136]. "

Agree.

> 4) Why is there (a) and (b) for the definition of Origin?

Because there are two different definitions for two different contexts. We'll make this clearer.

--Paul Hoffman