Avoid overloading the term "NOTIFY"

[peterthomassen]

The draft currently says:

In the text below there are two different uses of the term
"NOTIFY". One refers to the NOTIFY message, sent from a DNSSEC signer
or name server to a notification target (for subsequent
processing). We refer to this message as NOTIFY(RRtype) where the
RRtype indicates the type of NOTIFY message (CDS or CSYNC).

The second is a proposed new DNS record type, with the suggested
mnemonic "NOTIFY". This record is used to publish the location of the
notification target. We refer to this as the "NOTIFY record".

I found myself repeatedly confused by NOTIFY sometimes denoting the record in the parent, and sometimes denoting the message sent by the child.

There may be a risk of confusing other people as well. - Can we think of resolving this ambiguity? (As the message is already called NOTIFY by RFC 1996, we'd have to rename the record type.)

[jrlevine]

Good point, the RRTYPE is not the notification but the end point. I suppose YFITON would be too clever.

[peterthomassen]

fixed in #22