All makse sense thanks for the claifications Paul. Nothing further from my side. -JG -----Original Message----- From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 12:51 AM To: James Gannon <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: dnsdir@xxxxxxxx; dnsop WG <dnsop@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Ext] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09 Thanks for your review! On Aug 28, 2023, at 1:24 AM, James Gannon via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Section 1: > Personal Preference: The intro section seems to be a little unfocused, > if you take another pass at the document I would suggest tightening it > down to the doc's goal more succinctly. I agree that the introduction has now strayed beyond "what are the goals of this document", but the other things there were added at the request of the WG (mostly in RFC 7719 or 8499) and should be seen before you read the body of the document. I don't think adding a sub-section 1.1 would make it much better. > Section 2: Context for resolving a name: The global DNS root zone > distributed by PTI. - This line seems to be very light compared to > others It is, because we wanted to be as succinct as possible on this contentious topic. If you have suggested text for a helpful expansion that doesn't cause too much grief in the WG, that would be great. > Suggestion: This kind of document would work well in a more dynamic > format similar to some of the work being done on updating the IETF > Tao, something to potentially consider post-publishing. Humorous side-note: I was the person who spearheaded moving the Tao to a web site. It was ultimately useful, but the process engendered strongly-held design opinions from a surprisingly wide audience. I would not recommend to anyone... --Paul Hoffman -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
