On 10/10/2018 3:40 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a DNS specification that is fairly clear to people who know a little
about DNS, but not a lot. You win.
This text
DNS data semantics have been
limited to the specification of particular resource record types, on
the expectation that new ones would be added as needed.
would have been clearer for me, if it said "new resource record types would be
added as needed". "new ones" was vague enough to break my train of thought.
Long day, late in the afternoon, lots of comments preceding yours, and I
appear to be approaching a threshold of pissiness (which I figure you
are a far more pleasant target of than any number of the day's
predecessors.)
So I'm going to nitpick your nitpicking...
The current text is:
DNS data semantics have been limited to the
specification of particular resource record types, on the expectation that new
ones
would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of new resource record
types has
proven extremely challenging, over the life of the DNS, with significant
adoption and
use barriers.
which I believe is fully clear, given that there does not appear to me
to be any candidate for intepreting 'one' other than 'resource record
type', but worse, making the change you suggest would produce:
DNS data semantics have been limited to the specification of
particular resource record types, on the expectation that new resource
record types would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of
new resource record types has proven extremely challenging, over the
life of the DNS, with significant adoption and use barriers.
which is one heck of a lot of "resource record types" in the same, short
paragraph.
grrr...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
