Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for "DNS Terminology" (draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis)

[Benno Overeinder]

Dear WG, authors,

Summarising the feedback on the mailing list and follow-up steps for the 
authors.


The feedback of Sara has been incorporated in 
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-06.


The feedback of Peter consists of two items:
1) clarification zone origin to parent zone origin (in the section 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05.html#section-7-2.36)
2) definition of degree of kinship in context of the term "unrelated 
name server".


Feedback 1) can be easily incorporated in the document.

For feedback 2), the chairs agree that the term "unrelated" is a 
general/everyday language word and not very specific.  We tried to come 
up with a better, more specific word, also with help from others, but we 
and the WG could not come up with a better term.


While the degree of kinship is more specific and helps us define the 
term "unrelated", we feel it adds some complexity to the glue definition 
and is otherwise not used/relevant in the document.  Therefore, we 
suggest that the authors stick to the use of the term "unrelated name 
server".


See for context the following email thread, 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PBr7-ZMVYiqEzFalOFAQaMnPpFs/.


The document is now in WG consensus and waiting for write up state.

Best regards,

-- Benno


On 10/03/2023 18:21, Benno Overeinder wrote:

Dear WG,

Thank you for your feedback, also from Peter Thomassen in another email 
thread about the glue definition.


Herewith I close the WGLC.


Best,

-- Benno


On 20/02/2023 15:37, Sara Dickinson wrote:

Hi,

LGTM.

I’ve opened a small PR to just update the DoQ references now there is 
an RFC:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/pull/12

Regards

Sara.


On 17 Feb 2023, at 15:51, Benno Overeinder  wrote:

Dear DNSOP WG,

Following the latest consultation with the Working Group on bailiwick 
and in-domain/sibling name servers terminology, the authors and 
chairs believe this document has reached the stage of being ready for 
Working Group Last Call.


Due to normative reference to draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional 
(because that draft explains what to do with the definitions in this 
draft), both drafts will go to WGLC together.  (WGLC for 
glue-is-not-optional will be issued early next week.)



This starts a Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis.

Current versions of the draft is available here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/.


The Current Intended Status of this document is: Best Current Practice.

Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.
If this does not seem appropriate please speak out.
If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please 
speak out with your reasons.

Supporting statements that the document is ready are also welcome.


This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 
March 3rd 2023


Thanks,

-- Benno

___
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


___
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

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld next steps

[Andrew McConachie]

On 7 Mar 2023, at 18:48, Joe Abley wrote:

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 15:56, David Conrad  
wrote:


4 weeks for ICANN (which? Organization, Board, Community, all 3?) to 
provide feedback? (That feels sort of like the ITU asking "the IETF" 
for feedback on an IP-related protocol document in 4 weeks.)


Did the IETF (also which?) provide feedback on this similar request 
for feedback?


https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-procedure-for-selecting-a-top-level-domain-string-for-private-use-13-01-2023

It seems like the answer is no. Perhaps it would be useful for someone 
to decide whether these ships are intentionally passing in the night 
or whether more attention to navigation is required.


Not drect input to the public comment, but folks should be aware of 
these correespondences between IAB and ICANN.






—Andrew

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

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-06.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.

   Title   : DNS Terminology
   Authors : Paul Hoffman
 Kazunori Fujiwara
   Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-06.txt
   Pages   : 56
   Date: 2023-03-10

Abstract:
   The Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of
   different RFCs.  The terminology used by implementers and developers
   of DNS protocols, and by operators of DNS systems, has sometimes
   changed in the decades since the DNS was first defined.  This
   document gives current definitions for many of the terms used in the
   DNS in a single document.

   This document obsoletes RFC 8499 and updates RFC 2308.

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/

There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-06

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts


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

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for "DNS Terminology" (draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis)

[Benno Overeinder]

Dear WG,

Thank you for your feedback, also from Peter Thomassen in another email 
thread about the glue definition.


Herewith I close the WGLC.


Best,

-- Benno


On 20/02/2023 15:37, Sara Dickinson wrote:

Hi,

LGTM.

I’ve opened a small PR to just update the DoQ references now there is an RFC:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/pull/12

Regards

Sara.


On 17 Feb 2023, at 15:51, Benno Overeinder  wrote:

Dear DNSOP WG,

Following the latest consultation with the Working Group on bailiwick and 
in-domain/sibling name servers terminology, the authors and chairs believe this 
document has reached the stage of being ready for Working Group Last Call.

Due to normative reference to draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional (because 
that draft explains what to do with the definitions in this draft), both drafts 
will go to WGLC together.  (WGLC for glue-is-not-optional will be issued early 
next week.)


This starts a Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis.

Current versions of the draft is available here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/.

The Current Intended Status of this document is: Best Current Practice.

Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.
If this does not seem appropriate please speak out.
If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out 
with your reasons.
Supporting statements that the document is ready are also welcome.


This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: March 3rd 
2023

Thanks,

-- Benno

___
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


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

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP rfc8499bis Interim followup consensus on historical definition of bailiwick

[Benno Overeinder]

Hi Peter,


On 06/03/2023 23:31, Peter Thomassen wrote:
I just went over the updated wording in draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05, 
and the paragraph 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05.html#section-7-2.36 caught my attention.


It uses the term "zone origin", but doesn't say whether it relates to 
the parent or child zone. I was assuming the child, and it took me a 
while to make sense of it (until I noticed that it must mean the parent).


Thank you for your clarification.  This feedback will incorporated in a 
next revision of the document.



I'd like to suggest clarifying that paragraph. That brings me to your 
question below:


On 11/25/22 14:38, Benno Overeinder wrote:
Thank you for your input and your suggestion to come up with a more 
specific terminology for the "historical" out-of-bailiwick term.  In 
the definition of in-domain and sibling domain, you suggest using the 
0th and 1st order in the definition?  And for out-of-bailiwick use a 
term like "2nd+ order nameservers"?


Pretty much. Here is a version of it that's hopefully better to grasp 
than my previous post, and has examples.


     There are various degrees of relationship between a delegation and its
     name servers.  The degree depends on where theirdelegation paths from
     the root intersect with the delegated zone's delegation path.

     To establish the degree of relationship for a given name server, count
     how many zone cuts in the delegation path from the root to the zone of
     interest are shared by the delegation path of that name server.  
This is
     a measure of unrelatedness between the zone and its name server, 
called

     "degree ofkinship".

     If the degree is 0, then the NS hostname is "in-domain".  For example,
     a delegation for "child.example.com" might have an in-domain name 
server

     called "ns.child.example.com".  The name server name has all the zone
     cuts from the root that the delegated domain has.

     If this number is non-zero, then the delegation path to the name 
server

     name branches off from the zone's delegation path.  The "degree of
     kinship" tells you how many zone cuts above the zone of interest this
     happens.  For example, a delegation for "child.example.com" in the
     "example.com" zone might have a "sibling domain" name server called
     "ns.another.example.com", which does not share the final zonecut of
     "child.example.com".  The branching is at "example.com", and the 
degree

     of kinship is 1.

     An unrelated relationship is one where the degree of kinship is larger
     than 1.  For example, the delegation for "example.jp" might have an
     name server "ns.example.com".  The delegation paths alreadydiverge at
     the root, 2 zone cuts above "example.jp".

This may be a bit verbose, but I'm sure it can be reduced to four 
paragraphs, if needed, that are easier to digest than the four 
paragraphs the draft currently has for these definitions.


While writing the above, I again stumbled over the term "unrelated name 
server". It could mean all kinds of things, such as a name server that 
doesn't claim to be authoritative. People don't always have the 
definitions at hand, and I think using that term is a risky choice 
(especially as "unrelated" is a word from every-day language).


Thank you for further explaining your idea and concept of degree of 
kinship.  The chairs agree that the term "unrelated" is a 
general/everyday language word and not very specific.  We tried to come 
up with a better, more specific word, also with help from others, but we 
and the WG could not come up with a better term.


While the degree of kinship is more specific and helps us define the 
term "unrelated", we feel it adds some complexity to the glue definition 
and is otherwise not used/relevant in the document.  Therefore, we 
suggest that the authors stick to the use of the term "unrelated name 
server".


Best regards,

-- Benno

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