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

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 28 Jun 2018, at 7:19, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 6/27/2018 3:01 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Due to its nature, the document is a bit difficult to read, but I 
>> don't have any suggestion about how to make it better.
>
> Could you at least provide some description of what it is that you 
> find difficult?

It feels like it loops into itself, where 3.1 and 3.2 sound like, but 
are different than, 2.2 and 2.3. I've stared it, and I don't see a way 
to make it better without making 2.2 and 2.3 more convoluted. It's not 
worth worrying about more unless someone else comes up with a 
simplification that is actually simpler.

>> The only problem I have with the document is that there are lots of 
>> informational references that are not referred to in the body of the 
>> text; they are not even listed in the Updates list at the top of the 
>> document. This should either be explained clearly in the body of the 
>> document or removed.
>
> Assuming my xml processor produces the same list of not-used 
> references as yours:  most indeed needed to be added to the Updates 
> list and have been.  A few were carry-overs from the base document and 
> indeed are unused here; they've been drops.  Thanks for the audit.

s/audit/visual scan/  :-)

> FWIW, I'd considered replicating the Updates list in the body of the 
> document, solely to get rid of the 'unused' list during processing, 
> but decided that merely invites divergent copies...

Fully agree.

--Paul Hoffman