Subject: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix

From: Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 23:31:49 +0200

A number of reviewers of the accompanying draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
suggested to have both drafts WG Last Call reviewed in one go.  We think
this makes sense and the last version of the
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-01 is good for WG Last Call.

This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix

Current versions of the draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix

The Current Intended Status of this document is: Best Current Practice

Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.
If this does not seem appropriate please speak out.
If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please
speak out with your reasons.

This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on:
Wednesday 11 July 2018.

Thanks,

-- Benno

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:01:36 -0700

Due to its nature, the document is a bit difficult to read, but I don't 
have any suggestion about how to make it better. The only problem I have 
with the document is that there are lots of informational references 
that are not referred to in the body of the text; they are not even 
listed in the Updates list at the top of the document. This should 
either be explained clearly in the body of the document or removed.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 07:19:49 -0700

On 6/27/2018 3:01 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> have any suggestion about how to make it better. 

Could you at least provide some description of what it is that you find 
difficult?

> The only problem I have 

Assuming my xml processor produces the same list of not-used references 
as yours:  most indeed needed to be added to the Updates list and have 
been.  A few were carry-overs from the base document and indeed are 
unused here; they've been drops.  Thanks for the audit.

FWIW, I'd considered replicating the Updates list in the body of the 
document, solely to get rid of the 'unused' list during processing, but 
decided that merely invites divergent copies...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 12:02:07 -0700

On 28 Jun 2018, at 7:19, Dave Crocker wrote:

>> Due to its nature, the document is a bit difficult to read, but I 
>> don't have any suggestion about how to make it better.
>
> Could you at least provide some description of what it is that you 
> find difficult?

It feels like it loops into itself, where 3.1 and 3.2 sound like, but 
are different than, 2.2 and 2.3. I've stared it, and I don't see a way 
to make it better without making 2.2 and 2.3 more convoluted. It's not 
worth worrying about more unless someone else comes up with a 
simplification that is actually simpler.

>> The only problem I have with the document is that there are lots of 
>> informational references that are not referred to in the body of the 
>> text; they are not even listed in the Updates list at the top of the 
>> document. This should either be explained clearly in the body of the 
>> document or removed.
>
> Assuming my xml processor produces the same list of not-used 
> references as yours:  most indeed needed to be added to the Updates 
> list and have been.  A few were carry-overs from the base document and 
> indeed are unused here; they've been drops.  Thanks for the audit.

s/audit/visual scan/  :-)

> document, solely to get rid of the 'unused' list during processing, 
> but decided that merely invites divergent copies...

Fully agree.

--Paul Hoffman