On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2015, at 14:20, Casey Deccio wrote: > > 1. (stylistic) There are a number of definitions that quote terminology >> and >> then parenthetically state "quoted from". It seems more intuitive, >> precise, and consistent to mark quoted text using quotation marks instead, >> as in other definitions. Some examples (there are probably more): >> - Canonical name >> - CNAME >> - NODATA >> - Resolver >> > > Yes, the document does not use a consistent style to say what is quoted. I > did this to make it more readable. In specific, I think using quotation > marks will make it less readable. If there are specific places where the > style makes it unclear what is quoted, we should correct that, but trying > to be completely consistent will make some parts harder to read. I'm not sure how adding quotation marks makes things less readable. If we're saying that we're quoting text, I'd really like to know what the text is that we're quoting. If we're paraphrasing, no quotation marks are necessary. This is a fairly standard practice. > > 3. The current text for referral is incomprehensible. I suggest the > following: > > A response "generated using local data" which contains no answer but rather > includes "name servers which have zones which are closer ancestors to the > name than the server sending the reply" (RFC 1034, sections 4.1 and > 4.3.1). These name servers take the form of NS records in the authority > section of the response and come from the "NS RRs marking cuts along the > bottom of a zone" when "a match would take us out of the authoritative > data" (RFC 1034, section 4.3.2). Referrals are only associated with > non-recursive (i.e., iterative) queries (RFC 1034 section 4.3.1). In > general, a referral is a way for a server to send an answer saying that the > server does not know the answer, but knows where the resolver should direct > its query should be directed in order to eventually get an answer. > > Historically, many authoritative servers answered with a referral to the > root zone when queried for a name for which they were not authoritative, > but this practice has declined. > > See also Glue Records. > > This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to the > -bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus. > Could you help me understand which parts of the (reworded) paragraph are contentious? Independent of the current intended definitions for "referral", the current text really is unreadable and (in my opinion) unsuitable for an initial document. 4. In the definition of RRset, the bit about TTLs needing to be the same >> seems out of place for this terminology document. That is an operational >> requirement. >> > > Disagree. To some people, TTLs are operational, to others they are part of > the master file format. For the latter, this sameness applies to the > definition. What I am saying is that whether the TTLs are the same (correct) or the TTLs are different (incorrect), it doesn't change the definition of RRset, which is the set of RRs with the same name/class/type. Therefore the requirement that the TTL be the same is not a useful statement for the definitions doc, whether it's operational or standards-based. Regards, Casey
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
