神明達哉 <jin...@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
>
> - I wonder why its intended status is standards track. It generally
> just talks about operational techniques rather than describe some
> new protocol, so a BCP seems to be more appropriate (in fact RFC2317
> is a BCP). Perhaps it's because this document will "update" RFC2136?
> I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but just curious.
Yes, it's because of the changes to UPDATE. (See the questions for
reviewers in the appendices)
> - Section 7.5: s/will be still be/will still be/
Thanks :-)
> - Section 8
>
> Similarly, for its IPv6 network 2001:db8:A::/48, organization A again
> asks for a DNAME record, like this:
>
> I'm not sure why 'a' in '2001:db8:A::' is upper-cased, but if
> there's not a strong reason for it I'd consider lower-casing it,
> applying the recommendation of RFC5952 (whose primary target is not
> literature like I-Ds or RFCs, but I think it's generally better to
> have consistent view in various textual representations of IPv6
> addresses).
I have used "2001:db8:A::" for the same reason I used "A.example". Is it
too cute?
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
Southeast Iceland: Northerly 5 to 7, increasing gale 8, perhaps severe gale 9
later. Moderate or rough, becoming very rough later. Snow or snow showers.
Moderate occasionally very poor.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
