Hi Tim,

Thanks for the suggestion. This represents a good compromise I think to the
comments regarding the length of the introduction as well as considering
the history of the document.

Yours,
Daniel

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:40 PM Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:48 AM Michael Richardson via dnsdir <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>     as> Reviewer: Anthony Somerset
>>     as> Review result: Ready with Nits
>>
>>     as> Section 3.2 = "SHOULD remain pointing at the cloud provider's
>> server IP address
>>     as> - which in many cases will be an anycast addresses."
>>
>>     as> I don't believe its correct to include this assumption about
>> anycast addresses
>>     as> and is largely irrelevant to the content of the draft so i don't
>> believe there
>>     as> is value in keeping the text after the hyphen
>>
>> I see your point.
>> I feel that there is some relevance to pointing this out.
>>
>> One of important aspect of reminding people about this is to indicate
>> that it
>> should be surprising if queries to these addresses actually return
>> different
>> time views of the zone.  It can take some minutes for all anycast hosts to
>> update.
>>
>> A second important aspect is that the address that queries go to is not,
>> because of anycast, the same as the place where the updates go.
>>
>> I don't feel strongly about this, I just think that we wrote this down
>> for a reason.
>>
>>     > The intro is very long and talks about things that don't get
>> explained until
>>     > much later in document and could cause some confusion, it may be
>> better to make
>>     > the intro more concise and move some of these aspects into the
>> relevant
>>     > sections.
>>
>> It grew as a result of reviews.
>> you are saying we overshot, sure.
>>
>>     > Section 1.2 - to me this would flow better if it was its own
>> section after the
>>     > solution is explained
>>
>> okay.
>>
>>
> To second Anthony's comment about the Introduction being long I have to
> concur.
> The first part of the Introduction nicely lays out the document.
> Could you do this:
>
> Introduction
> Terminology
> Selecting Names to Publish
> Dynamic DNS Alternative solutions
>
> Envisioned deployment scenarios
>
>
> Each of these sections seem solid enough to stand on their own
>
> I always like getting the terminology lined up right away so the reader
> isn't reading ahead, but that is probably just me.
>
> tim
>
> (working on my dnsdir review also!)
>
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
>> )
>>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> dnsdir mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsdir
>>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to