[dnsext] Re: polishing of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc3597-bis-01

[Andreas Gustafsson <[e-mail]>]

Alfred Hoenes wrote:
> Well, the improvement IMHO would be the central place to look for
> definitions, making it easier for future documents to include these
> definitions 'en bloc' by reference.

At this juncture, my main concern is the progress of this document
rather than the ease of writing future ones.  If the sentiment of the
working group as a whole is that your proposed change is important,
I will integrate it, but otherwise I would really prefer to leave the
text as is.

> >> The list of 'word' in Section 5 might be improved visually
> >> by making use of "symbols" type list format, e.g. using dashes
> >> or asterisks.
> >
> > Agreed, but I'm not sure how to do this in "nroff -ms" (the document
> > is based on the original RFC3597 nroff source); hints are welcome.
> 
> Sorry, I can't offer recent experience, but as the RFC Editor uses
> nroff for the final stage, it must be possible.
> Do you have the macros available that are described in
> Section 5.3.7.2 if draft-lilly-using-troff-05 ?

Unfortunately, I don't; the document is is based on plain "nroff -ms"
plus the fix.pl post-processing script from RFC2223 (the initial
version of the document predates draft-lilly-using-troff-05 by several
years).  But I did finally managed to find a (somewhat ugly) solution
based on the .IP command.

> So I assume that you have applied the change of terminology to the
> 3rd item in the subsequent list (the only other occurrence of "word"
> in this sense).

Yes, I have.

> > As to the general rules regarding parentheses and end-of-line comments
> > in master files, as much as I would like to educate readers about
> > them, I don't think that is within the scope of the current document.
> 
> Not sure.  If these optional "decorations" were not mentioned in the
> normative text here, the reader could be led to the assumption that
> the draft text wanted to state an exemption from the general rules
> for the case on unknown RR types.

RFC1035 says:

   The format of these files is a sequence of entries.  Entries are
   predominantly line-oriented, though parentheses can be used to continue
   a list of items across a line boundary, and text literals can contain
   CRLF within the text.  Any combination of tabs and spaces act as a
   delimiter between the separate items that make up an entry.  The end of
   any line in the master file can end with a comment.  The comment starts
   with a ";" (semicolon).

I really don't see how the mere lack of a mention of these rules could
be interpreted as stating an exemption from them.  RFCs that define
new (i.e., known) RR types and their presentation formats also
typically don't mention the comment and line continuation syntax
explicitly.  These aspects of the master file format aren't even
specific to RR entries; they apply to any entry including ones like
$ORIGIN and $INCLUDE.

> >> (3)  Change Summary
> >>
> >> We are going to obsolete RFC 3597 and heading for DS with this draft.
> >> IESG rules thus require describing the differences of the memo from
> >> its predecessor in some part of the document that is not doomed to be
> >> stripped off by the RFC Editor.
> >>
> >> Therefore, it might be wise to add a section (or Appendix)
> >> "Changes Since RFC 3597" that gives a condensed summary of
> >> the current Appendix A.
> >
> > Will do, but I'm still curious as to where these IESG rules are
> > documented - do you have a reference?
> 
> I'm not aware of a written statement, but my brain leaks as well.
> In general, the well-known rule of "In the IETF it is most important
> to know which of the written rules are _not_ applied in practice"
> is likely to need an addition "... and which other, unwritten rules
> are expected to be followed closely."   :-)

If that's indeed the case, it would seem to have rather serious
implications with regards to the openness of the IETF process.
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, [e-mail]