Re: [Tsv-art] [Ext] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-12

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review!

On Aug 13, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Allison Mankin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Allison Mankin
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> Overall Comment - there is a lot of illumination in here, but one overall point
> and a few smaller ones explain why I rated the draft Almost Ready, rather than Ready.
> 
> The overall points is that it should give the reader more guidance.  It is very 
> clear early on, but as the topics become more complex, there is increasing use
> of terms before they are defined.  Section 2's discussion of ASCII, presentation format
> and display format, is very complex, but reads much better if you first go read the
> definitions of the format types (and dip into IDNA).  Sections 3 and 4 depend a lot
> on the term "owner" and there wasn't enough of a cue that this was a formal term to 
> To help the reader use the document better, how about including a readers note at the
> end of the Introduction, pointing out that no ordering of the terms could be made to
> solve this, but noting the existence of the alphabetical index, a very unusual feature
> in IETF documents, I think.

Will do.

> 
> Transport Review Considerations
> 
> I know it was discussed whether to include any terms related to DNS Stateful Operations. 
> When this is revised again, pay attention to the very first sentence in the Intro, which
> will need tweaking for session-signaling.  

Yep, that will complicate things for future versions of this document, or any document talking about the DNS.

> In contrast, in the EDNS definition in Section 5, I recommend tweaking the following to 
> remove the word "potentially" because there already are multiple Proposed Standards for
> options that affect the handling of a DNS query.  
>   "and potentially to carry additional options that affect the handling of a DNS query"
> Would also suggest using this opportunity to clarify that EDNS is not end-to-end, because 
> that is a source of confusion.

Agree.

> Smaller Comments
> 
> Section 1
> 
> Quoted sentence is not correct, because whatwg is not part
> of W3C (cf.https://whatwg.org/faq):
>   "For example, the W3C defines "domain" at <hhttps://url.spec.whatwg.org/>."
> Fix by not including the example.  If this is really where W3C goes for its
> definition of domain, change the sentence to read "the W3C uses <whatwg's spec>
> as the source of its definition of domain"

We'll sidestep this ongoing political tussle by saying that WHATWG defines the example there.

> 
> Section 2
> 
> Typo: missing words in definition of locally served DNS zone:
>   "The context through which a locally served zone [missing words?]
>    may be explicit, for example, as defined in [RFC6303], or implicit,"

Fixed.

> 
> Section 4
> 
> Typo: "it would have be"
>   "Note that, because the definition in [RFC2308] is actually for a
>    different concept than what was in [RFC1034], it would have be
>    better if [RFC2308] had used a different name for that concept."

Fixed.

> 
> Section 6
> The Abstract and Section 6 use the term "successor" incompatibly.  The Abstract uses
> it as a synonym for "obsoletes":
>   "This document will be the successor to RFC 7719, and thus will
>    obsolete RFC 7719."
> Section 6 uses it more in the sense of "updates" (unless I've missed something
> and RFC1035 has been obsoleted.  
>   "and sends responses using the DNS protocol defined in [RFC1035] and its
>    successors."
> To my taste, not using the word in the Abstract would be a good fix for this.

Agree.


> Section 9
> 
> Discussion of registry introduces "superior," a term not defined or used anywhere else.
> Fix this by replacing it with terminology that is defined, such as "superordinate" or
> adding "superior" to the section on "superordinate."
>    "for some zones, the policies that determine
>     what can go in the zone are decided by superior zones and not the
>     registry operator."

No need for us to define yet a new term here; "superordinate" seems good.

--Paul Hoffman