All, Thanks for the lively discussion on this point….after reviewing the thread, the editors, the chairs, and the AD (Warren) felt that there was consensus support for the new language proposed by the editors defining “class," but controversy about the additional language proposed by Paul.
Rather than re-open the document in the WG and pursue a new WGLC and IETF LC, we decided to forward the document on with the brief change proposed by the editors. Personally, I figure the controversy over the use and meaning of “class” in the DNS won’t go away, and I wouldn’t oppose someone reviving Andrew’s draft or writing another one. Suzanne > On Sep 3, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that > draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined it. > This seemed to the authors and chairs like a reasonable thing to fix. It’s > also important enough that we want WG review, but not extensive enough to > require a new LC. > > Here's the definition that the authors would like to add to the document: > > > Class: > A class "identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol" (Quoted from > [RFC1034], Section 3.6). "The DNS tags all data with a class as well as the > type, so that we can allow parallel use of different formats for data of type > address." (Quoted from [RFC1034], Section 2.2). In practice, the class for > nearly every query is "IN". There are some queries for "CH", but they are > usually for the purposes of information about the server itself rather than > for a different type of address. > > Please let us know your opinions yea or nay by Monday, Sept. 10, midnight UTC. > > > Thanks, > Suzanne > (For the chairs) >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
