I dislike the rate of change in terminology, and what feels like intrusion of somebodys favourite term, which is not actually reflective of widespread use in DNS discussion.
I have never said DO53 and I don't know anyone who has. Every other term of art, has sound basis. This feels like a bad backronym and we are now moving from a terminology to an emerging AI aware ontology of phoneme-building. Can we stick to acronyms which really exist? Is this in a document of substance and I missed something? (very possible) A dictionary model I like (btw) is to show the earliest published use of the form, to set its context and definitions as they emerge. -G On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:37 AM Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> wrote: > > Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > > > I dislike Do53, because then we should really have Do53-over-TCP as DoT > > and Do53-over-https as DoH. If we call it "DNS-over-TCP" than really > > what we are doing is running (classic) DNS over TCP, and we shouldn't > > midway the discussion rename "DNS" to "Do53". > > These abbreviations are about identifying the transport that is being used > for the DNS messages. One problem with Do53 is that it isn't specific > about the transport, because it covers both UDP and TCP. But it's a handy > abbreviation for DNS over traditional transports. It doesn't identify DNS > as a whole, just the framing of DNS messages in UDP and TCP. > > Tony. > -- > f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ > a just distribution of the rewards of success > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
