FYI: A new version (-23) of the dname-bis draft has been posted with the two sections re-added (resolver algorithm and examples of DNAME use). I haven't heard any comments from the DNSEXT WG on it, but it was only just posted. Scott On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Thanks for the response! Comments below, eliding the bits I think need no further comment. > > On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Scott Rose wrote: > >> Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it? > > That would resolve my concern, if it fits with the intent of the work group. > > >> >> As for the nits: >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > [...] > >> Yes, will correct. >> >> -- ..., 7th paragraph: "...replaced with the word "DELETED"." >> >> Won't that just leave the word "deleted" hanging on page without explanation? Wouldn't it be better to just simply delete it? >> >> >> Maybe, but I think the logic was that if there is some text there (just something), it can be cleanly referenced (i.e. "DELETED [RFCXXXX]")if someone is making a revised version of the RFC for some purpose. Purely deleting it accomplishes the task, but this provides a good "hook" for a paper trail. >> > > Okay. On reflection, it's not like we really render the updates the old RFC documents. > > >> Scott >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > =================================== Scott Rose NIST scott.rose@xxxxxxxx +1 301-975-8439 Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671 http://www.dnsops.gov/ =================================== _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf