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, many auth

[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 more intuitive, pr

[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