Reviewer: Ted Lemon Review result: Ready with Issues Frustratingly, the -15 update makes the document worse as a result of my initial comments, not better. I think the authors didn't understand why I made the comments, and hence are just trying to get rid of the text that I commented on rather than fixing it. I actually suggested a better way to write the text, in the initial review, which may have gotten lost: > * every node in the tree of the domain hierarchy is a label. > * a domain name describes a particular path along that tree between two nodes > one of which is below the other in the tree hierachy, where each label is > hierarchically below the label to its right (if any) and hierarchically above > the label to its left (if any), with each pair of labels separated by a '.'. * > an FQDN is a path along the tree between the root node and some other node (all > nodes on the tree obviously being hierarchically below the root node), with the > root label being represented by a trailing '.' > I'm not seriously proposing that you make this change, but if you don't, I > think you should delete the sentence about graph theory, because it's just > confusingly broad if you don't then actually describe the subset of graph > theory you're talking about. So, as an example, I did not suggest removing the text about fully-qualified domains, which was fine, and is now not fine, in the sense that the reader will have no idea why they are being mentioned. If you just delete the "graph theory" comment, I think the definition of labels is fine, but it wouldn't hurt to include an example. Sorry to backtrack on the readiness state—I feel like I must have communicated ineffectively in previous reviews. :( -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
