Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

Suzanne Woolf <> Mon, 10 September 2018 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA16131025 for <>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ESA-LmlBggnw for <>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C2FF130FEE for <>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q184-v6so999147vke.7 for <>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=I2OK+ySN8V9lymg5MgyYpN2hH1M50I9ETXoWpZFPmh8=; b=J9z6L9U8qSzMf6hXWWk9HnRO6QF3wLijktouEGVkR6uerZYHCjmk+ltR6xlr/HxF7T lV6mncet7Ttov78w7+pFqaHNwgJpBoJGY7mQJE/t/6LrZ6gKOjHitGFr9d0QDSXIk2Q6 CWKD75aceZviwua4lXyAtA82vnf1Io46AL1LcVu/pPAvGjfQ99EExTL88fIQsFizudGS lrkxiWo7aPyvbZSFBHnbOZi7BP81hNrFpS1yTJTdFEXLMyxh//WUH/YmkGXK5tSXC12o cMdm8vrZEuDPe0Xc4nMXkrfeAM6HNVJcSn1cCmK4KSFvm68+nXmo8ehRyaKCi9D16i82 1h5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=I2OK+ySN8V9lymg5MgyYpN2hH1M50I9ETXoWpZFPmh8=; b=sSC4xgQ2c2jdzPWEpvbhgd29ofPPNw5l53n4LGk+qeN6ADD4ubhiQKP6Xx+D0Z7I3L K3vFUx311TqAAFwviRnT7vFj80zewxj89IQHCa+P4UhJZ02pHzlfuUpgWbOeaGgNe/lF EfyozcSIhZRdC5wXg0p38vkwSKjZChUf0u9pWq0ABJFjuyt3v+tL8vJfMqGYa4u5RZTg ZcWXnjxYnFSsi5Y6I8/c7BWwljJI3q5MInMBu6M79Zqt8zu80zMvEj7nGkj+y0SM4lGH vTi6ezzXh2WgTe3ut+e9B9bjaVmQQixBVezJixiDaQvUeAgTMq4yD+EPThJHYu6yEiQl WdjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CjItXhKjCObZs/pA5su8f/3gduy/7WNLq29YJH74A9OVl+50VS ixcdiaUGq1t3kFH6awOLhl4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZX9CgrtSPgkNd/mleNKDDUQWrxpWyhgU+ylsb5hdtHWXvyJx3fBBCYupE8lMP/98FiEtUvNg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:413:: with SMTP id 19-v6mr7044866vke.152.1536618126968; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c381:29fe:74a2:fbde:e4de:49bc? ([2601:181:c381:29fe:74a2:fbde:e4de:49bc]) by with ESMTPSA id c9-v6sm1932244uak.19.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:22:04 -0400
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Paul Vixie <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:22:17 -0000


> On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Paul Vixie <> wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> ...
>> I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to
>> be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale.
> this thread has further cemented my prejudice against CLASS. however, it has also motivated me to define it well enough that we can create a global "CHAOS" system, with very different zone cuts, which seems like an idea bad enough to be good.

Note that RFC 6895 ("Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations”), Section 3.2, has some observations about CLASS as well. 

> for the terminology-bis draft, is it enough to use andrew's words above?

I think this discussion demonstrates that it would be controversial to attempt to go beyond the original proposed wording, and we can’t really do something controversial at this stage unless we’re willing to re-open the approval process for the document (pull it back to the WG, then re-run IETF LC).  I’m not inclined to do that.

Warren, anything to add?