Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: RFC8499-bis

[fujiwara]

> From: Tony Finch 
> I recently noticed that the bailiwick-related definitions are wrong and
> muddled.
> 
> I have always understood in-bailiwick to mean that a nameserver name is a
> subdomain of its zone apex. That is, exactly the cases where glue is
> required by the DNS protocol. The term comes from the discussion of
> gluelessness at http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/notes.html - "RFC 1034 specifically
> requires glue for referrals to in-bailiwick DNS servers."
> 
> RFC 8499 seems to use "in-domain" for this situation

Yes.

Before RFC 8499, "in-bailiwick" had two meanings. 
in-bailiwick to mean that a nameserver name is a subdomain of its zone apex.
 and 
"in-domain" http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/notes.html

>, which is not a term
> I have seen anywhere else.

  Yes.
  I borrowed the words "in-domain" and "sibling" from
  draft-koch-dns-glue-clarifications.
  (submitted in 2010, draft only)

  There are no "in-bailiwick" and "out-of-bailiwick" definitions
  before RFC 7719.

  We need four types of glue names.
  In RFC 8499, "out-of-bailiwick", "in-bailiwick", "in-domain", "sibling".

  Please propose new names.

# And I missed a term related to domain name: Occluded Name [(RFC6936].

-- 
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS 

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: RFC8499-bis

[Tony Finch]

I recently noticed that the bailiwick-related definitions are wrong and
muddled.

I have always understood in-bailiwick to mean that a nameserver name is a
subdomain of its zone apex. That is, exactly the cases where glue is
required by the DNS protocol. The term comes from the discussion of
gluelessness at http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/notes.html - "RFC 1034 specifically
requires glue for referrals to in-bailiwick DNS servers."

RFC 8499 seems to use "in-domain" for this situation, which is not a term
I have seen anywhere else.

The question of sibling glue is different from whether nameservers are
in-bailiwick. It comes up in questions about registry policies rather than
DNS protocol needs: whether or not a registry requires all nameservers
that are subdomains of the registry domain(s) to have addresses, even in
cases where the DNS does not need glue.

The description of siblings in RFC 8499 is muddled, because it is unclear
when it is referring to a nameserver name or a zone name, and it's
unclear when it is talking about a child zone or their shared parent zone.
And the nameservers themselves aren't siblings; they are nephieces or
niblings or something like that.

I suggest:

  * Sibling zones: two zones whose delegations are in the same
parent zone.

  * Sibling glue: addresses of nameservers that are in a sibling zone.
Sibling glue is usually the glue that the DNS would require for that
sibling zone, but in some cases the requirement lies elsewhere, for
example

one.example.NS  nsa.two.example
one.example.NS  nsb.two.example
two.example.NS  ns0.two.example
two.example.NS  ns1.two.example

   The DNS protocol does not require sibling glue for the one.example
   nameservers, though glue addresses might be required by .example
   registry policy.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
the fundamental values of liberty, equality, and community

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop