Subject: Re: [dnsop] Re: comments about morishita-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00

From: Kevin Darcy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:55:24 -0500

JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:

>>Thus, if a DNS server which is responsible for the
>>   name is not compliant to the specifications
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>==> s/to/with/ (I've seen both but I think that with is better)?
>>    
>>
>
>I myself does not have a strong opinion on this.  If someone else,
>particularly a native English speaker, makes a (quick) strong
>suggestion, I'll take it.  Otherwise, I'll leave the wording as is.
>
>Some detailed background of this decision:
>I've grepped for "compliant to" and "compliant with" over RFCs,
>and have not seen a significant difference:
>
>(per line result)
>% grep -i 'compliant to' *.txt | wc -l
>     155
>% grep -i 'compliant with' *.txt | wc -l 
>     182
>
>(per document result)
>% grep -i 'compliant to' *.txt | awk '{print $1}' | sort | uniq | wc -l
>     117
>% grep -i 'compliant with' *.txt | awk '{print $1}' | sort | uniq | wc -l 
>     101
>
>(This comparison may not be fair, though, because most documents using
>'compliant to' are MIB related ones, and the result may simply come
>from a preference of a small group/individual.)
>
I would change the main verb from "comply" to "conform", and rewrite the 
whole subphrase as a verb construct (since "... is ... is ..." tends to 
grate slightly), i.e.

>Thus, if a DNS server which is responsible for the
>   name does not conform to the specifications
>
Actually, the whole sentence could be tightened up and merged with the 
previous one:

    This fallback mechanism is based on the DNS specifications, which if
    not obeyed by authoritative servers can produce unpleasant results.

(Admittedly, "obey" is slightly less well-defined than either "comply" 
or "conform", but its use obviates the placement to two prepositions in 
a row).

									- Kevin

.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:41:02 +0900

>>>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:46:39 +0900, 
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[email-masked]> said:

> As for editorial comments, we'll take them into account when we ever
> have a chance to revise the draft.  (At the moment, I, for one, do not
> see the need.)  But in any event, we appreciate all the comments.

So, it's time to make a response to the rest of the comments
(including one "substantial" comment).

>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:15:42 +0300 (EEST), 
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> said:

> 4.2 Return NOTIMP
                                                                                                  
>    Other authoritative servers return a response with the RCODE being 4
>    (NOTIMP), indicating the servers do not support the requested type of
>    query.

> [...]

>   Using SERVFAIL or FORMERR would cause the same effect, though the
>    authors have not seen such implementations yet.
                                                                                                  
> ==> I recall faintly that e.g. bind 4.9 series prior to patching some
> years ago returned SERVFAIL?  Maybe also have a look at: 
> http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ngtrans/200110/msg00123.html

I would leave this part as is, since no one has shown more detailed
information on this.  Besides, the original sentence itself is still
correct regardless of whether some BIND4.9 servers return SERVFAIL or
not.

> semi-editorial
> --------------

> In the following sections, this
>    memo describes some typical cases of the misbehavior, the rationale,
>    and (bad) effects of them.

> ==> "them" is an ambiguous referral.  Does it refer to the both 
> misbehaviour and the rationale?  Based on the memo, it looks like it 
> should only refer to the misbehaviour, because the document doesn't 
> generally look at the (bad) effects of the _rationale_ (why the DNS 
> queries are mishandled, which is typically just due to bugs or whatnot).

I'll change the sentence to:

  In the following sections, this memo describes some typical cases of
  the misbehavior and its (bad) effects. 

that is, remove "the rationale", since this draft focuses on the
behavior description and the effects (as you pointed out).

> editorial
> ---------

> This memo describes details of the known cases and
>    discusses the effect.

> ==> s/effect/effects of these cases/ (seems to end a bit abruptly?)

Okay (though I'm not sure if this is really abrupt).

>    Many DNS clients (resolvers) that support IPv6 first search for AAAA
>    RRs (Resource Records) of a target host name, and then for A RRs of
>    the same name.

> s/RRs (Resource Records)/Resource Records (RRs)/

Changed.

(per line result)

(per document result)

>  In some cases, for example, a web browser fails to connect
>    to a web server otherwise it could.

> ==> s/otherwise it/it otherwise/ ?

Thanks for catching this up, the original wording was incorrect.  I'll
fix this to:

  In some cases, for example, a web browser fails to connect to a web
  server it could otherwise.

(slightly different from your suggestion)

> The examples are for informational purposes
>    only, and the authors do not intend accusation against any
>    implementations or zone administrators described in this memo.

> ==> s/intend accusation against/intend to accuse/

Okay (I don't think the previous one was wrong, but maybe "the simpler
is the better").

> 4.4 Return a Broken Response
                                                                                                  
>    Some other type of authoritative servers return broken responses to
>    AAAA queries.

> ==> s/type/types/ ?

I'll change the sentence to:

  Another different type of authoritative servers returns broken responses to
  AAAA queries.

The reason for the change is because we actually only know one "type"
of the broken response: using an IPv4 address as the RDATA of a AAAA
query.

> Full Copyright Statement

> ==> add the IPR boilerplate section before this?

Hmm, I don't know why the previous draft missed the boilerplate.  The
xml2rfc script should have automatically attached it.  Perhaps I used
an older version of the script?  This time, at least my local copy of
the text contains the boilerplate.

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:47:29 +0900

>>>>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:55:24 -0500, 
>>>>> Kevin Darcy <[email-masked]> said:

>>> ==> s/to/with/ (I've seen both but I think that with is better)?

(snip)

>> suggestion, I'll take it.  Otherwise, I'll leave the wording as is.

(snip)

> or "conform", but its use obviates the placement to two prepositions in 

Thanks for the suggestion.  Again, I myself does not have a particular
opinion on the wording, but I'll take this one.  This is probably a
good compromise to avoid the "to vs with" discussion.

There was another occurrence of "compliant to" in the original draft:

   There are some known cases not compliant to the expected behavior.
(the first sentence of Section 4)

I'll change the sentence using "conform" as suggested:

   There are some known cases that does not conform to the expected
   behavior.

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:47:29 +0900

(snip)

(snip)

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:41:02 +0900

Changed.

(per line result)

(per document result)

                                                                                                  

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya