On 4/29/15 7:56 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
I'll start with an observation that does not directly relate to the draft which does put me in an awkward position. The language used in the RFCs is not exactly the language used in operations. Yes, most words are the same but not all. If the draft is going to "firm up" RFC terminology, it should do so consistently. If the term is not in any RFC, leave it out. If the draft is going to "firm up" the language used to describe the DNS, then it should capture more operational jargon and note when some RFC language has fallen by the wayside.
Speaking only for myself as a chair, I'd like to mention that the decision was made to "document" existing terminology, not try to redefine or even "firm up" RFC terminology. That I feel would be a Standards Track document and those terminology should stand alone by itself.
tim _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
