Subject: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc3597-bis-00

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:01:25 +0200 (MESZ)

Andreas,
after a first glance at draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc3597-bis-00 :

(1)
Could you please add a summary "Differences from RFC 3597" section
in the next draft revision? -- the IESG actually has made that
mandatory anyway for Standards Track documents.

Thanks in advance!

(2)
In the last para of section 1, I suggest to spell out "RFC 3597"
in the prose for enhanced readability; the formal citation in
the preceding paragraph should be sufficient.
Perhaps, an explanation of the motivation/goal for the draft
would be helpful for the reader; for instance:

   This document is a self-contained revised specification supplanting
   and obsoleting RFC 3597 in order to allow the specification to
   advance on the Standards Track.

(3)
For added precision and clarity, and as a service for the reader,
I suggest to give more precise citations for the large Standard RFCs
1034, 1035, and 1123, indicating (where appropriate) the sections
being referred to.

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

---

From: Andreas Gustafsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:14:14 +0300

> mandatory anyway for Standards Track documents.

Paul Hoffman also requested such a list of changes.  I will add one to
the next revision.

>    advance on the Standards Track.

I will add some text to this effect.

> 1034, 1035, and 1123, indicating (where appropriate) the sections

I will update the text to clarify that section 3 of the draft is
referring to RFC1123 section 6.1.5.3, and that section 5 of the draft
is referring to RFC1035 section 5.1.  The reference to RFC1034 is not
intended to target any specific section.

Regards,
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, [email-masked]