Re: (short version) Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, March 05, 2015 20:12 +0100 Patrik Fältström
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> 	Historically, uses of the DNS to map a domain name to a
>> 	URL have relied on the NAPTR RRTYPEs and then on the
>> 	DDDS[RFC3401] application framework with the DNS as a
>> 	database as specified in RFC 3404 [RFC3404].
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> The following sentence isn't clear, which doesn't help.
>> Probably what is intended more like:
>> 
>> 	Among the implications of that usage are inability to
>> 	select interesting and relevant NAPTR records from those
>> 	that match the query.
> 
> What about:
> 
>    Historically, uses of the DNS to map a domain name to a URL
> have    relied on the NAPTR RRTYPEs and then on the DDDS
> [RFC3401]    application framework with the DNS as a database
> as specified in RFC    3404 [RFC3404].  This has a number of
> implications such as the fact    the RRSet returned will
> contain all URIs "connected" with the owner,    and not only
> the ones related to a specific service.

If _that_ is what you meant, I've been very confused... and the
above is a huge improvement.

>> There are several other editorial issues (e.g., "Querying for
>> URI resource records is not replacing querying..." later in
>> the Introduction and "Applications MUST know the specific
>> service to prepend..." in Section 3 (one cannot prepend "a
>> service", only an identifier of one)), but I hope we can
>> leave them to the RFC Editor to identify and sort out.
> 
> Yeah, as you know John, my english is not the best... :-(

As I have said many times before, lots better than my Swedish.
That is why we have an RFC Editor.  It does mean that you should
keep an eye on them at AUTH48 and/or ask for a little help from
your friends :-).  

>> Finally, given these discussions, I believe the
>> Acknowledgements section probably needs review and updating.
> 
> Now:

Good enough.  I wasn't looking for anything in particular, just
noting that the document has changed a lot in the last couple of
weeks and that section had not been updated to match.

    john