Dear WG,
With the DNSOP rfc8499bis interim in September, we had the action point
to send two questions to the DNSOP WG to find consensus on the bailiwick
and glue discussion.
You can find the interim meeting material here
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-dnsop-02/session/dnsop
and the recording of session here https://youtu.be/wY7-f40lDgU.
We will send two questions to the WG, in two separate emails to keep the
discussion separate. This email is the first question to the WG that
addresses the definition of bailiwick.
Questions:
1. Move Bailiwick to historical.
1a. During the interim, there was a (feeling of) consensus to drop a
formal definition of "bailiwick", but keep a historical definition
(how it was interpreted by) of "bailiwick". Also do not define and
use the term "in-bailiwick".
Suggested terms to use are "in-domain name server" and "sibling
domain domain server", as defined and used in
draft-draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional, section 2.1 and 2.2.
[The latest draft of glue-is-not-optional does provide a definition
of sibling domain name servers, but it does not really provide one
for in-domain name servers. That would be easy to fix.]
1b. Does this also mean changing the definition of "out-of-bailiwick"
to a more historical definition as well? Or do we still need a
term for in-domain name server, sibling domain name server and ...
(alternative for out-of-bailiwick)?
Is "unrelated name server" a term that can be used?
Thanks,
-- Suzanne, Tim and Benno
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
