[DNSOP] Document Action: 'DNS Terminology' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'DNS Terminology' (draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-05.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Benoit Claise and Joel Jaeggli. A URL of thi

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-05.txt

Kazunori Fujiwara Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-05.txt Pages : 27 Date: 2015-09-24 Abstract: The DNS is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology used by implementers and

Re: [DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

Paul, - "Further, some terms that are defined in early DNS RFCs now have definitions that are generally agreed to, but that are different from the original definitions. Therefore, the authors intend to follow this document with a substantial revision in the not-distant future. That revisi

Re: [DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 18/09/2015 21:00, Tim WIcinski wrote: On 9/16/15 4:55 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: From the shepherd writeup: "One issue raised by the Working Group was that such a list of definitions would be best served with some sort of Index. The authors and the Document Shepherd agree, but feel it would

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Paul, Thanks for the followup! That works ... Spencer On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 18 Sep 2015, at 13:41, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > > Hi, Paul, >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Paul Hoffman >> wrote: >> >> On 16 Sep 2015, at 9:52, Spencer Dawkins

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 18 Sep 2015, at 13:14, Stephen Farrell wrote: Hiya, On 18/09/15 19:55, Paul Hoffman wrote: On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote: Is a domain a sub-domain of itself? No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a subdomain of another domain..." There is no la

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 18 Sep 2015, at 13:41, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: Hi, Paul, On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On 16 Sep 2015, at 9:52, Spencer Dawkins wrote: If this For example, at the time this document is published, the "au" TLD is not considered a public suffix, but the

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 18September2015Friday, at 11:55, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> Is a domain a sub-domain of itself? > > No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a subdomain > of another domain..." There is no language in RFCs 1034 or 103

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

Hiya, On 18/09/15 19:55, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> Is a domain a sub-domain of itself? > > No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a > subdomain of another domain..." There is no language in RFCs 1034 or > 1035 that indica

Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 18 Sep 2015, at 14:40, Paul Hoffman wrote: On 16 Sep 2015, at 13:31, Ben Campbell wrote: I'm balloting "yes" because I think a document like this should exist. But I share the question others have raised about why publish this version if a newer version is coming soon. Just to emphasize

Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 16 Sep 2015, at 13:31, Ben Campbell wrote: I'm balloting "yes" because I think a document like this should exist. But I share the question others have raised about why publish this version if a newer version is coming soon. Just to emphasize what I have said in earlier responses: please don

Re: [DNSOP] Terry Manderson's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 16 Sep 2015, at 20:22, Terry Manderson wrote: No-objection from me regarding the existence of this document, I do think it's helpful, however along with others (Ben, Benoit, Alvaro) I feel the work is incomplete if a revision is required so soon. We hope our wording explains this, without

Re: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 16 Sep 2015, at 11:21, Alvaro Retana wrote: This is a very nice, and needed reference. However, I don’t understand why it is being published. Because it is very nice and needed. :-) As others have pointed out, the Introduction reads: Therefore, the authors intend to follow this documen

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 16 Sep 2015, at 9:52, Spencer Dawkins wrote: If this For example, at the time this document is published, the "au" TLD is not considered a public suffix, but the "com.au" domain is. (Note that this example might change in the future.) is intended to say that a subdomain may be a

Re: [DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 16 Sep 2015, at 1:55, Benoit Claise wrote: - From the shepherd writeup: "One issue raised by the Working Group was that such a list of definitions would be best served with some sort of Index. The authors and the Document Shepherd agree, but feel it would be better served being handled duri

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote: Is a domain a sub-domain of itself? No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a subdomain of another domain..." There is no language in RFCs 1034 or 1035 that indicate that a domain can be a subdomain of itself. Do we c

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:52:12AM -0700, Spencer Dawkins wrote a message of 75 lines which said: > In this text > > Some servers do not honor the TTL on an > RRset from the authoritative servers, such as when the > authoritative data has a very short TTL. > > I wasn'

[DNSOP] Terry Manderson's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

[DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04

On 11 Sep 2015, at 13:45, Black, David wrote: The -04 version of this draft addresses most of the concerns noted in the Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of the -03 version. In particular, both of the major process-related issues have been addressed by retargeting the draft to be an Informational RF

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04

rms in RFC 4033 being preferable? If so, that's not clear. Thanks, --David > -Original Message- > From: Black, David > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 8:09 PM > To: Paul Hoffman; asulli...@dyn.com; fujiw...@jprs.co.jp; General Area Review > Team (gen-...@ietf.org); ops-...

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04.txt

Kazunori Fujiwara Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04.txt Pages : 27 Date: 2015-08-31 Abstract: The DNS is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology used by implementers and

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 12:03 PM > To: Black, David > Cc: Paul Hoffman; dnsop@ietf.org; General Area Review Team (gen-...@ietf.org); > ops-...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns- > terminology-03 > &

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Hi, On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:28:11PM +, Black, David wrote: > > > [B] 2. Names - p.4 > > > > > > Label: The identifier of an individual node in the sequence of nodes > > >that comprise a fully-qualified domain name. > In other words, I would have expected the fully-qualified domain nam

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

day, August 10, 2015 9:51 PM > To: Black, David > Cc: General Area Review Team (gen-...@ietf.org); ops-...@ietf.org; > dnsop@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03 > > Thank you for the careful review! Comments belo

[DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

d WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03 Reviewer: David Black Review Date: August 10, 2015 IETF LC End Date: August 11, 2015 Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues descr

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Thank you for the careful review! Comments below, in an shortened form. On 10 Aug 2015, at 17:09, Black, David wrote: Major Issues: [BCP] Is BCP status appropriate for this draft? Based on earlier comments, we have chosen to change this to Informational for the next draft. [DownRef] idnit

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 7/16/15 6:44 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote: >>> We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of >>> documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still whe

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote: >> We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of >> documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still where documents >> go to die... > > Agreed, but I a

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 16 Jul 2015, at 14:14, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > We have been through extensive review and a Working Group Last Call on this > draft. The next revision should go ahead to the IESG. +1 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailma

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Hi, This is a good time to remind ourselves of how we got here. This draft came into the WG as an individual submission, with the authors seeking comment but not asking for it to be a WG work item. We eventually adopted it in the expectation that handling it as a WG draft would lead to higher

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote: > We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of > documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still where documents > go to die... Agreed, but I also don't want to return to that bleak past where we could never g

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Shane Kerr wrote: > All, > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:33:59 -0400 > Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote: >> > I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document >> > out with points that a

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

> On 16 Jul 2015, at 03:15, Paul Hoffman > wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> >> Just on this issue, and speaking only for myself (but as one of the >> people behind this document), my view is that this WG has historically >> been one of

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

All, On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:33:59 -0400 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote: > > I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document > > out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where there isn't > > WG con

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 7/15/15 10:15 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: Not only do you agree and acknowledge that, *so does the document*. Based on the contention and lack of consensus for some of the definitions, the Introduction now says: During the development of this document, it became clear that some DNS-related te

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote: I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where there isn't WG consensus. I don't thin

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Sorry for the top-post. As I understand things, this is more than a "choice". RFC 2181 requires it, I think, no? -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums. > On Jul 15, 2015, at 06:00, John Dickinson wrote: > > > >> On 14/07/2015 17:26, Casey Deccio wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Hi, On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote: > I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document > out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where there isn't > WG consensus. I don't think it needs perfection, but it seems unnecessary

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:55:19AM +0100, John Dickinson wrote a message of 47 lines which said: > I wouldn't call it a turkey, but I do agree with Tony that deferring > anything contentious to a -bis is a bad way forward, It's harsh to say that "everything contentious" have been deferred. A

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 14/07/2015 17:26, Casey Deccio wrote: On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Paul Hoffman mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org>> wrote: On 13 Jul 2015, at 14:20, Casey Deccio wrote: 4. In the definition of RRset, the bit about TTLs needing to be the same seems out of place

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 14/07/2015 18:15, Tim Wicinski wrote: On 7/14/15 12:26 PM, Tony Finch wrote: Paul Hoffman wrote: This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to the -bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus. As far as I can tell from the last few months there

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > On 7/14/15 12:26 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > >> Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >>> >>> This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to >>> the >>> -bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus. >>> >> >> As far as

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 7/14/15 12:26 PM, Tony Finch wrote: Paul Hoffman wrote: This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to the -bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus. As far as I can tell from the last few months there is a fairly clear consensus that the current

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Paul Hoffman wrote: > > This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to the > -bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus. As far as I can tell from the last few months there is a fairly clear consensus that the current draft is not good enough. Brushing off

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 13 Jul 2015, at 14:20, Casey Deccio wrote: > > 1. (stylistic) There are a number of definitions that quote terminology >> and >> then parenthetically state "quoted from". It seems more intuitive, >> precise, and consistent to mark quote

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 13 Jul 2015, at 14:20, Casey Deccio wrote: 1. (stylistic) There are a number of definitions that quote terminology and then parenthetically state "quoted from". It seems more intuitive, precise, and consistent to mark quoted text using quotation marks instead, as in other definitions. So

[DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03 - part 2

More comments below. Cheers, Casey 1. The definitions of iterative mode and recursive mode still seem a bit awkward. Also, the bit about answering from cache doesn't seem to be a part of recursive mode, but of general response to queries. And the discussion of the distinction between recursive

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Jul 13 2015, Casey Deccio wrote: I have a few comments on the latest draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology (-03). There will be more; I'm part way through a review. [snip] 3. The current text for referral is incomprehensible. I suggest the following: [snip again] Historically,

[DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Hi all, I have a few comments on the latest draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology (-03). There will be more; I'm part way through a review. Thanks, Casey 1. (stylistic) There are a number of definitions that quote terminology and then parenthetically state "quoted from". It seems

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03.txt

ystem Operations Working Group of the IETF. Title : DNS Terminology Authors : Paul Hoffman Andrew Sullivan Kazunori Fujiwara Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03.txt

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03.txt

Kazunori Fujiwara Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03.txt Pages : 24 Date: 2015-06-22 Abstract: The DNS is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology used in by implementers and

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

On Jun 16, 2015, at 3:50 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > > Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >>> "Name Error" as a synonym for NXDOMAIN seems like it is worth >>> including, somewhere. >> >> Are you sure that "name error" always refers to NXDOMAIN? If not, this >> is not a can of worms we should open. > > Absol

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

On Jun 16, 2015, at 3:33 AM, John Dickinson wrote: > > > > On 15/06/2015 22:35, Paul Hoffman wrote: > "NSEC3": whether not NSEC3 is "quite different" from NSEC depends on your > context. Functionally, in the narrow sense of "allows verifiable denial > of existence", they are ident

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

On Jun 17, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:49:47AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >>> "Name Error" as a synonym for NXDOMAIN seems like it is worth including, >>> somewhere. >> >> Are you sure that "name error" always refers to NXDOMAIN? If not, this is >

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:49:47AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > "Name Error" as a synonym for NXDOMAIN seems like it is worth including, > > somewhere. > > Are you sure that "name error" always refers to NXDOMAIN? If not, this is not > a can of worms we should open. > To the extent it doesn

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > "Name Error" as a synonym for NXDOMAIN seems like it is worth > > including, somewhere. > > Are you sure that "name error" always refers to NXDOMAIN? If not, this > is not a can of worms we should open. Absolutely. RFC 1035 section 4.1.1: RCODE Response code -

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

On 15/06/2015 22:35, Paul Hoffman wrote: "NSEC3": whether not NSEC3 is "quite different" from NSEC depends on your context. Functionally, in the narrow sense of "allows verifiable denial of existence", they are identical. I think it would be clearer to focus on their functional similarities,

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Regarding specific definitions, what about my suggestions under "more > > definitions" at > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg14243.html > > Some of those definitions were speculative, and I think it is better to > defer them. All of the definitions

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

On Jun 15, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Joe Abley wrote: >>> I think that "superordinate" and "subordinate" might be worth mentioning >>> here, with reference to their definitions in EPP. >> >> These seem limited to the EPP RFCs only, so probably not worth bringing up >> here. > > Well, there's a whole

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

Hi Paul, On 15 Jun 2015, at 14:49, Paul Hoffman wrote: This message, and some of the earlier in this discussion, says in essence "RFC Foo says the definition of X is Y, but that's wrong". At the beginning of this process, we decided that we should use definitions from the RFCs where possible

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

This message, and some of the earlier in this discussion, says in essence "RFC Foo says the definition of X is Y, but that's wrong". At the beginning of this process, we decided that we should use definitions from the RFCs where possible instead of making up our own. That was a good way to get t

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

: Paul Hoffman Andrew Sullivan Kazunori Fujiwara Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt Pages : 23 Date: 2015-05-26 TL;DR: I found some text I think could be improved. I mainly

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

On Jun 14, 2015, at 10:05 AM, John Dickinson wrote: > Typo: I think you mean parent-side not parent-size. "No, I'm sorry, you can't have a big NS record like that until you're older and have had kids of your own." Fixed. > A few other things that have confused me in the past: > > In-bailiwick

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

On 05/06/2015 17:50, Paul Hoffman wrote: Thanks again for the in-depth review. A few comments below. On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Tony Finch wrote: The definition of "authoritative data" is still wrong. We have done the best we can with this, given that RFC 1034's definition is in dispute.

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

On Jun 11, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > Sorry for being slow to respond - other work intruded. No problem. We're still hoping to get as much substantiative review as we can before the chairs send this off to IETF Last Call. > >> The indexing tools for RFCs suck in many ways. We assume

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

Paul Hoffman wrote: Sorry for being slow to respond - other work intruded. > The indexing tools for RFCs suck in many ways. We assume that if someone > is looking at the RFC and wonders if a term in defined, they'll use the > search function of their text editor or web browser. Yes, totally. Bu

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

Thanks again for the in-depth review. A few comments below. On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > I mentioned an alphabetical index in my previous comment - I expect that > will be easier to add during final editing. I want to mention it again > because one of the main questions a reade

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

I like the formatting in the new draft, a great improvement! And thanks for incorporating so many of my suggestions. I mentioned an alphabetical index in my previous comment - I expect that will be easier to add during final editing. I want to mention it again because one of the main questions a r

Re: [DNSOP] More for the WG Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology

f.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02 The previous WGLC date was 22 May 2015, but there was a delay in getting a new version published. We want to push the WGLC to Friday, 5 June 2015. thanks tim On 5/26/15 11:40 AM, Paul Hoff

[DNSOP] More for the WG Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology

draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02 Many of those diffs are just a change to make it clear where one definition stops and when another begins with better indentation, but many of them are new definitions or clarifications. Thus, a careful read is important to us. We also have three outsta

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

Kazunori Fujiwara Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt Pages : 23 Date: 2015-05-26 Abstract: The DNS is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology used in by implementers and

Re: [DNSOP] Next steps for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology

Paul is correct. I wanted to extend the WGLC 2 weeks till May 22, 2015. I believe our goal is to leverage expediency over completeness - to move the document into official publication. If anything is missing, it can be addresses in a -bis document within the next year. thanks tim On 5/12/

[DNSOP] Next steps for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology

Thank you for all your input. We are processing it now, particularly Tony Finch's long list. The chairs have told us that they're willing to extend the WG Last Call, and it will take us more time to integrate this into a new Internet Draft and respond, so please wait until we have. We definitely

[DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology

This turned out to be quite long... I hope it is useful! An alphabetical index would be helpful, as would making the formatting of paragraphs more distinct depending on whether they start with a definition or not (e.g. hangText in xml2rfc markup). It would also be good to avoid definitions in the

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

Since I already said I was ok with the addition, can we just stipulate that I'm wrong and move along with it? A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums. > On May 6, 2015, at 17:06, David Conrad wrote: > > I have never heard of ARPA being treated as a subclass of gTLD. > > Reg

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

I have never heard of ARPA being treated as a subclass of gTLD. Regards, -drc > On May 4, 2015, at 4:48 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:45:09AM +, Edward Lewis wrote: >> ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples. ("into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other >> categories;")[0] >

Re: [DNSOP] TLD, ccTLD and gTLD, agreement with the consensus (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:54:26PM +, Dan York wrote a message of 107 lines which said: > Would you support Ed Lewis’ modification of that text into this? Yes > "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs, gTLDs and other categories; > the division is a matter of policy in the root zone, and b

Re: [DNSOP] TLD, ccTLD and gTLD, agreement with the consensus (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt

Hi Dan, Stephane, Andrew, Ed, folks, I also prefer Ed Lewis' variant **. Enumerating all flavours of TLD would be excessive, but mentioning only gTLDs and ccTLDs -without a hint that there may be other variants- is a false friend, IMHO. Hence please can we go for the version with "and other cat

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

>>"TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division >>is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this >>document." Or something like that. Any objection? I think it has to be ccTLDs, gTLDs, and legacy TLDs to include ARPA, EDU, MIL, GOV and maybe INT. But I entirel

Re: [DNSOP] TLD, ccTLD and gTLD, agreement with the consensus (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt

Stephane, On May 4, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr>> wrote: I support Andrew Sullivan's version: "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this document." Would you support Ed Lewi

[DNSOP] TLD, ccTLD and gTLD, agreement with the consensus (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt

On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 04:25:57PM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote a message of 24 lines which said: > If we want to be exhaustive in defining all keywords and terms, I > would suggest then: I support Andrew Sullivan's version: "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division is a matt

Re: [DNSOP] no longer about Re: EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

I agree with Ed on this one. If you skip everything that everyone can't completely agree on, you'll wind up with a content-free, and useless, document. You don't need to go into a -lot- of detail, but enough to acknowledge the scope of what's being discussed. -Bill > O

[DNSOP] no longer about Re: EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

On 5/4/15, 7:48, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:45:09AM +, Edward Lewis wrote: >> ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples. ("into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other >> categories;")[0] > >I'm not opposed to the "and other categories", but the truth is that >anyone who cares about

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:45:09AM +, Edward Lewis wrote: > ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples. ("into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other > categories;")[0] I'm not opposed to the "and other categories", but the truth is that anyone who cares about DNS never hears about those other categories. Even

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

On 5/4/15, 4:22, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >"TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division >is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this >document." Or something like that. Any objection? My one addition would be to word this such that the division is not jus

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

On 4 May 2015, at 10:25, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> On May 4, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> I still think that defining TLD is >> useful, and I suspect in that definition we'd want to add the >> sentence, "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division >> is a matter of pol

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

Andrew Sullivan writes: > I still think that defining TLD is > useful, and I suspect in that definition we'd want to add the > sentence, "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division > is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this > document." Or somethin

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

"Patrik Fältström" writes: > > But instead ICANN have, and still am, referring to EU be on the reserved > list (and now exceptionally reserved) as a reason to allocate as a ccTLD. > If one read the board resolution approving EU as a (cc-)TLD, one will notice that this is really an exceptio

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

> On May 4, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I still think that defining TLD is > useful, and I suspect in that definition we'd want to add the > sentence, "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division > is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:16:43AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > Note that if we look at the original discussion, my only point is that we > should not claim ccTLDs are only allocated according to ISO 3166, but that > there is freedom to create two letter codes -- and that this has happened

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

On 4 May 2015, at 7:16, Patrik Fältström wrote: > I.e. 3166/MA is very careful with it not being the ones that register codes. Let me add...but they have not been so careful with what codes they reserve. Remember that in those days the list of reserved codes was not public (although IANA did ha

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

On 4 May 2015, at 5:25, David Conrad wrote: > [This has drifted a ways off from DNS terminology, so I changed the subject] Thanks! Note that if we look at the original discussion, my only point is that we should not claim ccTLDs are only allocated according to ISO 3166, but that there is freed

[DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

[This has drifted a ways off from DNS terminology, so I changed the subject] Patrik, Sorry, I'm a bit confused. > What ISO 3166/MA said was that the _only_ difference between the two, and the > reason why they reacted on .EU, was that ICANN referred to .EU being reserved > as a reason for regi

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt

On 4 May 2015, at 3:22, David Conrad wrote: > Patrik, > Also note that there are ccTLDs allocated for codes that are not registered in ISO3166 (UK, EU etc). >>> >>> IIUC these two are on the 3166 list as exceptionally reserved codes. >> >> Yes, but not REGISTERED, and that difference is

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt

Hi, > From the point of view of the DNS, there is no difference between a > ccTLD and a gTLD. This distinction is relevant only for policies. Not quite true. From the perspective of the protocol, a TLD is a TLD. From the point of view of the system, a ccTLD is different than a gTLD, e.g., the o

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt

Patrik, >>> Also note that there are ccTLDs allocated for codes that are not registered >>> in ISO3166 (UK, EU etc). >> >> IIUC these two are on the 3166 list as exceptionally reserved codes. > > Yes, but not REGISTERED, and that difference is something that created more > than just a little b

  1   2   3   >