On 1/22/24 17:47, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I support the publication of this document. As I told the authors a long time ago, I'm
still uneasy with all the capitalization ("Client" and so on) because it
disagrees with our Terminology RFC, and still offer to do a massive pull request to fix
it, but if they want to keep it, that's up to them.
I don't recall that; apologies for apparently missing that comment.
The capitalization was chosen to blend in when reading together with RFC 7344,
which uses this style and from which the terminology itself is borrowed as well.
The authors however have no preference at all. I'll mark this as a to-do for
the next revision.
Are you concerned only about the terms defined in 8499bis (such as "child"), or also the RFC 7344 terms
("Parental Agent", "Child DNS Operator") and new ones ("Signaling Name/Record/Zone")?
(If you prefer, you can answer this via a PR, but I don't want you to do all
the work.)
Thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
