Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-09.txt

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 5/23/2018 4:11 PM, John Levine wrote:
> I took a look at -attrleaf and -attrleaf-fix and the both look good to me.
> 
> The language about parent names is correct but a little confusing.  If
> I can figure out a less confusing way to reword it I'll pass it along.


Since it seems to be the only place with the string "parent name", I 
assume you mean:

> Scaling Benefits
> ...
> An
> increasingly-popular approach, with excellent scaling properties,
>  places the RRset under a node having an underscore-based name, at
>  a defined place in the DNS tree under the 'parent' name. This
>  constrains the use of particular <spanx style="verb">RR</spanx>
>  types associated with that parent name. 


How about:

An
increasingly-popular approach, with excellent scaling properties,
places the RRset under a specially-name branch, which is in turn under 
the node name that would otherwise contain the RRset.  The rules for 
naming that branch define the context for interpreting the RRset.  That 
is, rather than:

     domain-name.example
          /
        RRset

the arrangement is:

     _branch.domain-name.example
       /
     RRset



d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net