Re: [dnssd] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-22: (with COMMENT)

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Lars, thanks for your gen-ad review. Sorry for taking so long to address
your comments—life events got in the way.

On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 10:17 AM Lars Eggert via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-22
>
> CC @larseggert
>
> ## Comments
>
> ### Inclusive language
>
> Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and
> more
> guidance:
>
>  * Term `master`; alternatives might be `active`, `central`, `initiator`,
>    `leader`, `main`, `orchestrator`, `parent`, `primary`, `server` (matched
>    `master` rule, pattern ((\bmaster\w*\b)\w*))
>

This was in the zone file—oops. I've changed to "primary" which is the
replacement in more recent versions of BIND 9.


>  * Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`,
> `common`,
>    `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`,
>    `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`,
>    `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread` (matched
>    `tradition` rule, pattern ((\btradition\w*\b)\w*))
>

I just changed this to a direct reference to RFC2136—I think using
"traditional" here was just unnecessary.
 ### Outdated references

>
> Document references `draft-ietf-dnssd-advertising-proxy-02`, but `-03` is
> the
> latest available revision.
>

The xml just refers to the document name, so I assume this happened because
the -22 document was formatted before -03 was submitted.


> ### Grammar/style
>
> #### Section 3.2.5.3, paragraph 1
> ```
> the SRP server will handle this. Therefore SRP registrars MUST support
> compr
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Therefore".
>

I think that's appropriate here, so I've added the comma.


>
> #### Section 3.2.5.3, paragraph 3
> ```
> oving a host. However, in some cases a SRP requestor may not have retained
> s
>                                      ^
> ```
> Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound,
> e.g.
> "an article", "an hour".
>

Welcome to English pronunciation. There's a great article on this here:
https://www.editingbyemily.com/a-vs-an

FWIW, I think there was an affectation in certain circles to use 'an'
before 'h' regardless of whether it was pronounced as a vowel sound, but
that's something that was more common in the previous century, and I've not
seen it in a long time. It's very jarring to read. It is also the case that
pronunciation varies in different english-speaking countries, which may be
part of the reason for this dissonance. But certainly in this the
pronunciation "a host" is much more common than "an oast," although I don't
doubt there are native english speakers who use the latter.


> #### Section 3.3.1.1, paragraph 3
> ```
> A and/or AAAA records that are not of of sufficient scope to be validly
> publ
>                                    ^^^^^
> ```
> Possible typo: you repeated a word.
>

Yup,  Jean-Michel Combs spotted this as well.

#### Section 8.4, paragraph 2
> ```
> cally-Served Zones" subregistry of the the "Locally-Served DNS Zones"
> registr
>                                    ^^^^^^^
> ```
> Possible typo: you repeated a word.
>

For emphasis, obviously. ;)


> #### Section 10.5, paragraph 1
> ```
> mental edit, Tim Wattenberg for doing a SRP requestor proof-of-concept
> implem
>                                       ^
> ```
> Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound,
> e.g.
> "an article", "an hour".
>

This happens in two places in the document. I was reading it as "a service
registration protocol..." but you're right—at this point I read it as "a
SRP" and that's a vowel sound, so I fixed it in both places. :)