No, sir. Closer means downward. Nobody believes otherwise. Not even you, or
Joe. The only person ever to get it wrong was me, and I have recanted. Please
do not write anything that blurs or softens the clear language of
downwards-ness in 1034. If you can't keep the clear spirit and intent of the
existing document then please write nothing at all.
On November 29, 2017 8:28:11 PM GMT+08:00, Andrew Sullivan
<a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:23:36PM +0000, P Vix wrote:
>> 1034 cannot be reasonably read that way.
>
>Sure it can. See the discussion in draft-sullivan-dnsop-refer-down
>and on the list not two weeks ago for how. I think it should _not_ be
>read that way, but an honest reader could read it that way, and the
>terminology document is not the place to rule on the way people should
>read a text. We're supposed to be doing description, not prescription.
>
>Best regards,
>
>A
>
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
>a...@anvilwalrusden.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>DNSOP mailing list
>DNSOP@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
