On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:53 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I said, I though the text you copied from 8499 was good. It's also fine to just refer to 8499. As for the graph theory quote, if I'd reviewed 8499 I would have said the same thing about it there.This is not a huge problem. It's just something that I saw that I thought could be improved, and then I guess Warren chimed in on it.
Yup - I did this while juggling jury duty and trying to figure how I was going to survive without my phone :-P
I don't think it's reasonable to say "8499 says this, and even though that's somewhat confusing, it's more important to repeat what 8499 says than to say it more clearly." I am not sure Michael intended to say that, but that's how I read his response.So, from my personal perspective I would prefer that you put back the FQDN text and add an example for the "label" text.
Yup.
But I'm also perfectly okay with you just deferring explicitly to 8499 and not copying what it says at all.
Me too!
And I'm also okay with you telling me to shut up. This is not something anybody should be losing any sleep over!
Indeed. It feel like we might be getting somewhat frustrated over this text - as Ted noted, they were nits intended to try and improve the document. Any of the above, including the original are more than fine with me…
W
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 10:34 AM Owen Friel (ofriel) <ofriel@cisco. > wrote:com As Michael says, in -14 and earlier, we were verbatim without change copying text from RFC8499.And the latest -15 abridges the text to remove quoting of the offending text from RFC8499.If neither of the above are acceptable, how about this text:"The terms Label, Domain Name, Subdomain and FQDN are used throughout this document. Please refer to [RFC8499] for a definition of these terms."-----Original Message-----From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman. >ca Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 2:58 PMSubject: Re: Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-acme-integrations-15WARREN:Ted Lemon via Datatracker <noreply@ietf. > wrote:org > 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:Hi, I appreciate your frustation.You complained gently about text that wasn't ours. It was copied from RFC8499.We quoted the definitions to save you a trip to RFC8499 and back.That's an entire RFC *JUST* for DNS Terminology. Were you aware of this?Was WARREN aware when he asked us to look at your nit, aware of that?If using RFC8499 definitions is wrong in a document that deals a lot about DNS, then we really really have a problem. Especially for a DNS Directorate REVIEW.Editing the definitions would just lead to confusion as people wondered why we changed things. Abridging things to omit the words you found unhelpful at least makes it clear we aren't trying to change things.My co-author suggested we just rip all our text out.>> 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.We shortened it to what we thought was essential, but maybe we cut too much.--] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [--Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman. >, Sandelman Software Worksca -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
