On 19. 03. 24 7:15, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the review!
On 19 Mar 2024, at 03:28, Chris Box <chris.box.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is a little cart-before-horse in having the reasoning occur after the
conclusion. But I can see the benefit in having a very clear statement up front
in the document. Some people only read the beginning.
The document was changed to be like this because the working group found the
survey of current standards to be a bit of a distraction from the advice. The
purpose is after all to clarify the standards, not to enjoy a voyage through
them.
I have one suggestion for improvement, which you can modify or ignore as you wish. Some people only
read the title, particularly if they see it as part of a citation. And if that's all you see, it's not
a clear message at all. "In the DNS, QDCOUNT is (usually) One" tells me nothing I don't
already know. Yes it is usually one. However if you were to change the title to something like
"In DNS queries, QDCOUNT must be <= 1" then I learn all I need to know from simply the
title. To me, this is a win.
Personally I think we do need people to read a little bit beyond the title if
they are going to extract useful meaning from the document. If we accept that
to be a reasonable goal then perhaps having a title that seems slightly
intriguing is better than a title that is 100% spoiler.
IMHO intriguing != incorrect.
--
Petr Špaček
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
