On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 05:22:41PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Ah, the joys of defining terms that have been used a long time, but almost > never in RFCs. Grep all the RFCs: you'll see "bailiwick" is used, but not > defined, in RFC 6763 and 7477, and nowhere else.
To be fair to the other authors, I suspect I am mostly to blame for this particularly infelicitous way of defining things. Good thing we have WGs to review stuff! > I think "response" and "reply" don't need to be defined, but they do need to > be used more carefully, and we didn't do that here, I think (but my > co-authors might disagree with me). From looking at your concerns and the > general use of "bailiwick", I propose that it is records, not responses, that > in- or out-of. > What's tricky here is that the bailiwick-ness of something is only relevant given a response. So it seems to me that it's a question of records in a given response. I think Paul's proposed text doesn't _quite_ get us there, but it's close. I'll think some more. > Out-of-bailiwick -- A glue record in which the name server answering is not > authoritative for an ancestor of the owner name of the record. > Given the previous discussion about glue, that word seems especially fraught here. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
