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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 17 June 2015 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0EA1A90BA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m13lmhatst76 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44C591A9042 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (142-254-17-100.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.17.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t5HMf2Bs021075 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:41:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 142-254-17-100.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.17.100] claimed to be [10.20.30.101]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150617160310.GG16823@mx2.yitter.info>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:41:01 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B0ADADC1-8A6F-4956-9B19-26CCF4383CB0@vpnc.org>
References: <20150526153132.306.56516.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <75E0FCDF-615C-4F54-8503-9F821C38B0D5@hopcount.ca> <D1C3C284-0B5E-4CF9-8FF5-F150E814DB8A@vpnc.org> <20150617160310.GG16823@mx2.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-2xzCPY1faii52CO_dPm6hMCC0c>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:41:06 -0000

On Jun 17, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> 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 not a can of worms we should open.
>> 
> 
> To the extent it doesn't, such usage is not in line with STD 13.
> NXDOMAIN is the neologism here.  RFC 1035 names RCODE 3 as "Name
> Error".

I'll add a note about that.

> 
>>> In "origin", (a), the usual word for this in my experience is "apex". It would seem as well to mention apex here. If we're able to provide value judgements, we might recommend apex over this use of origin.
>> 
>> "Apex" is defined two terms later".
>> 
> 
> I think Joe is right that people usually use "apex" to mean "origin"
> in the way the document defines it.  I think we are attempting to
> reinforce a distinction that used to be in the RFCs but that seems to
> have blurred over time: the difference between the graph-theoretic
> space of the DNS and the implementation.  It might be worth adding a
> sentence, however, that notes the way the terms are often used
> interchangably.

I'll add a note to that effect to each of the definitions, and move the two definitions to be adjacent.

--Paul Hoffman