I did read the document while on a plane the other day, and in general I think it looks good and is very well written. Some notes below:
1. Most importantly I think it's hard to get across to the reader the point behind the document in a way they can understand easily in the beginning. There are some examples sprinkled throughout, including in the appendix, but it might be helpful to have a very clear example very early on with an "imagine the case of a new [social media, blockchain, ...] that was created with a DNS name of X and a application namespace using Y..." type situation. 2. Secondly, I think in general the bi-directionality of the problem space could use some improvements and additional text. An example is the importance of application spaces that don't reserve a corresponding space in the DNS and later end up in a conflict. In the end, I think it's critical for separate spaces to always ensure both sides are always in concert, not just one or the other. Similarly, it might be important to point out that in some cases the internal zone (or similar) records themselves may exist on both sides and there are issues with, for example, address records that suddenly get out of alignment. Also, consider discussing the even worse situation where two application spaces exist that suddenly come into conflict between each other and the DNS (.wallet being a good real-world example). More minor comments: - Intro, last sentence of third paragraph: I'm not sure "extends" is the right word there. "doesn't impede" or something seems more likely. - Intro, end of forth paragraph: "an undesirable outcome" -- Though experts likely know what these outcomes could be, we need to give new participants to this space a better understanding. It might be that just a forward reference is needed here, or at least some examples in ()s. - motivations: UI elements and name parsing tools are also good reasons why people reuse existing library APIs rather than building an entirely new naming syntax. - 4. Qualities of a DNS integration -> I'm not sure "Qualities" is the right word. Maybe "features" or something? - 4.4 and 4.6 have a lot of similar content, which might mean they'd be better combined or at least structured very carefully to be different in content -- Wes Hardaker Google _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
