Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is definitively a labor of love. Thanks for doing the work! I have some musings. Do the right thing, of course. Thank you for producing this valuable doc. In this text, 2. Names ... The common display format is used in applications and free text. It is the same as the presentation format, but showing the root label and the "." before it is optional and is rarely done. For example, in common display format, a fully-qualified domain name with two non-root labels is usually shown as "example.tld" instead of "example.tld.". Names in the common display format are normally written such that the directionality of the writing system presents labels by decreasing distance from the root (so, in both English and C the root or TLD label in the ordered list is right-most; but in Arabic it may be left-most, depending on local conventions). I bet I know what you mean by "C", but I'm guessing. Perhaps it's worth providing a reference, for all the Javascript and Python programmers who skipped over C? I'm looking at Administration of names -- Administration is specified by delegation (see the definition of "delegation" in Section 7). Policies for administration of the root zone in the global DNS are determined by the names operational community, which convenes itself in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The names operational community selects the IANA Functions Operator for the global DNS root zone. At the time this document is published, that operator is Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). (See <https://pti.icann.org/> for more information about PTI operating the IANA Functions.) The name servers that serve the root zone are provided by independent root operators. Other zones in the global DNS have their own policies for administration. and wondering what the stability of an ICANN URL that refers to the name of the current IANA Functions Operator will be in 5-10 years. I'm not sure what else you can do to make that more useful if a different operator is selected, but if you can do something, maybe that would be useful. I'm looking at this text: Passive DNS: A mechanism to collect DNS data by storing DNS responses from name servers. Some of these systems also collect the DNS queries associated with the responses, although doing so raises some privacy concerns. and thinking that the problem isn't collecting DNS queries associated with responses, it's that it's possible to collect DNS queries associated with responses (so, if one of these systems stops collecting DNS queries, you still have an exposure; it's just not happening now). Is that wrong? I'm looking at this text: Privacy-enabling DNS server: "A DNS server that implements DNS over TLS [RFC7858] and may optionally implement DNS over DTLS [RFC8094]." (Quoted from [RFC8310], Section 2) and seeing a race condition with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https/ (which isn't news to the authors who contributed to both specifications). Is it worth a mention here, given that the DOH draft is already in the RFC Editor queue? I may be misreading this text: Parent: "The domain in which the Child is registered." (Quoted from [RFC7344], Section 1.1) Earlier, "parent name server" was defined in [RFC0882] as "the name server that has authority over the place in the domain name space that will hold the new domain". (Note that [RFC0882] was obsoleted by [RFC1034] and [RFC1035].) [RFC0819] also has some description of the relationship between parents and children. but I'm reading it as "the definition in RFC 882 was obsoleted by RFC 1034-5 in 1987, and there was no definition until RFC 7344 in 2014". If that's what's intended, great, but if that's not your point, perhaps we should talk … "Ostensive" is a perfectly good word according to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ostensive, but I didn't know what it meant without Googling it. You guys know your intended audience, of course … In this text, Closest provable encloser: "The longest ancestor of a name that can be proven to exist. Note that this is only different from the closest encloser in an Opt-Out zone." (Quoted from [RFC5155], Section 1.3) "Opt-Out zone" wasn't familiar to me, but it's defined later in the document. Perhaps adding a pointer to Section 10 would be helpful to readers who lack clue as I do. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
