Subject: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:40:03 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a DNS specification that is fairly clear to people who know a little
about DNS, but not a lot. You win.

This text

   DNS data semantics have been
   limited to the specification of particular resource record types, on
   the expectation that new ones would be added as needed.

would have been clearer for me, if it said "new resource record types would be
added as needed".  "new ones" was vague enough to break my train of thought.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:35:15 -0400

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/

Long day, late in the afternoon, lots of comments preceding yours, and I 
appear to be approaching a threshold of pissiness (which I figure you 
are a far more pleasant target of than any number of the day's 
predecessors.)

So I'm going to nitpick your nitpicking...

The current text is:

> DNS data semantics have been limited to the
> specification of particular resource record types, on the expectation that new ones
> would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of new resource record types has
> proven extremely challenging, over the life of the DNS, with significant adoption and
> use barriers.

which I believe is fully clear, given that there does not appear to me 
to be any candidate for intepreting 'one' other than 'resource record 
type', but worse, making the change you suggest would produce:

      DNS data semantics have been limited to the specification of 
particular resource record types, on the expectation that new resource 
record types would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of 
new resource record types has proven extremely challenging, over the 
life of the DNS, with significant adoption and use barriers.

which is one heck of a lot of "resource record types" in the same, short 
paragraph.

grrr...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 22:38:25 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> DNS data semantics have been limited to the specification of particular
> resource record types, on the expectation that new resource record types
> would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of new resource
> record types has proven extremely challenging, over the life of the DNS,
> with significant adoption and use barriers.

i can live with that.

> which is one heck of a lot of "resource record types" in the same, short

truth hurts.

-- 
P Vixie

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:52:24 -0400

>> which is one heck of a lot of "resource record types" in the same, short

mumble. drat.  that's two in favor, which for this topic rates as 
overwhelming consensus.

sigh.  ooooooook.  if you insist...

d/

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:59:51 -0500

Hi, Dave,

> sigh.  ooooooook.  if you insist...

Oh, it's a No-Objection comment. I would only ask that people do the right
thing, but you'll know what that is ;-)

Spencer