On Aug 6, 2018, at 1:55 AM, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 1. One important difference between Informational RFC 7719 and the current > document is its elevation to the status of BCP. There must be good reasons for > this decision (like avoiding downrefs in new work, other), and I believe that > it would be useful to include a short justification, maybe in the Introduction > section, in case the document will be approved and published as a BCP. This is covered in the shepherd report, and I can't really find a good place to put in in the document. As the shepherd says: It's an effort to collect a large number of terms from a large number of sources, primarily RFCs but also common usage by practitioners. As such, it aims to improve interoperability among implementations and operational configuration of the DNS by giving implementers and practitioners a common reference vocabulary. Clearly the more people use it, the more useful it will be, so BCP seems right. In addition, from the process perspective, the document's status is BCP because it updates RFC 2308, which is a Proposed Standard. > 2. In section 2: > > 'An ordered list of zero or more octets and which makes up a > portion of a domain name.' > > This sentence seems to be broken, it is not clear what 'and' relates to. Good catch. Will remove the "and". > 3. In section 2: > > ' At the time this > document is published, that operator is Public Technical > Identifiers (PTI).' > > A reference would be useful. Will add: (See <https://pti.icann.org/>: for more information about PTI operating the IANA Functions.) > 4. In section 5: > > I cannot find a definition of the term 'resource record' itself. I can see RR > as acronym, then a discussion of RRset, etc., but not the term itself. Do I > miss something? No, you didn't. The definitions of resource records in RFC 1034 are: >From Section 2.4: - The DOMAIN NAME SPACE and RESOURCE RECORDS, which are specifications for a tree structured name space and data associated with the names. >From Section 3.6: A domain name identifies a node. Each node has a set of resource information, which may be empty. The set of resource information associated with a particular name is composed of separate resource records (RRs). The order of RRs in a set is not significant, and need not be preserved by name servers, resolvers, or other parts of the DNS. Frankly, it doesn't feel like either ("data associated with names" or "set of resource information") are helpful enough to include in the terminology document. If you disagree, we're open to suggestions. > 5. I cannot find a definition or expansion of SOA. I can see 'SOA field names', > 'SOA resource records', etc. but not just 'SOA' Good call. Will add: "SOA" stands for "start of a zone of authority". > 6. Section 6: > 'Master server: See primary server. > > Primary master: ' > > Is it 'Primary server' or 'Primary master'? It is "primary server", which was defined just above. Will rearrange to make this clearer. > 7. I cannot find a definition for 'NS records' Will add: An authoritative server is named in the NS ("name server") record in the parent zone. > 8. I found the Index to be very useful, and I wish other documents of this size > and complexity (or worse) include such a section. Thanks, this is good to hear. (And I say that as the co-author who objected strenuously to adding the index because no one uses them...) --Paul Hoffman
