Hi Peter, Joe’s version is definitely better. Do what you like. I’m asking for wordsmithing, not changing the semantics of the sentence. As it stands, I doubt that it will make it past the RFC editor. T > On Mar 2, 2025, at 4:17 AM, Joe Abley - jabley at strandkip.nl <mailforwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > >> On 2 Mar 2025, at 13:10, Peter Thomassen <peter=40desec.io@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 2/21/25 01:44, Tony Li via Datatracker wrote: >>> >>> Reviewer: Tony Li >>> Review result: Has Nits >>> OPSDIR review of draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-06 >>> Reviewer: Tony Li >>> Disclaimer: I am not a DNS expert and I do not play one on TV. I have >>> not helped with DNS operations since the 1980's. I am not up to speed >>> on DNSsec. I'm sorry, but I cannot devote the time necessary to do all >>> of the background reading that is outlined in Section 1. >>> Overall: Ready, with nits >>> Section 3.2: >>> It is also possible to publish child-specific records, where >>> in place of the wildcard label, the child's FQDN with the >>> parent zone's labels stripped is used. >>> Please reword. >> >> This wording is the result of the WG reworking this sentence during WGLC [1]. The authors think that if we reworded this, it would not have WG consensus at this point -- so we'd prefer to keep it as is. Please let us know if that doesn't work for you! > > I think that paragraph could be made easier to read without departing from the working group's consensus. > > For example: > > "It is also possible to publish child-specific records where the parent zone's labels are stripped from the child's FQDN and the result is used in place of the wildcard label." > > I find this a little easier to parse than the original, although clearly YMMV. > > > Joe -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
