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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Mon, 03 September 2018 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B8B130DEE; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 15:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 KiL27zw3LTae; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 15:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 90B69128CFD; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 15:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC8343AB044; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 22:49:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9473016005C; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 22:49:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785A5160066; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 22:49:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id S0iOJzjtxoYy; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 22:49:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.67] (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DBA916005C; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 22:49:29 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <5B8D548E.5080205@redbarn.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 08:49:27 +1000
Cc: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <30BF3D0E-1EE9-4310-ACCB-413E019B6D93@isc.org>
References: <4AA8656A-7D2F-4584-B84D-47E97483CCC2@gmail.com> <5B8D548E.5080205@redbarn.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1DYJF1zC9JnfVYvRKdJgIe9SJdY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 22:49:33 -0000

RFC 1035 Section 5.2 limits a zone to be single class.

> On 4 Sep 2018, at 1:34 am, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>; wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined
>> it. This seemed to the authors and chairs like a reasonable thing to
>> fix. It’s also important enough that we want WG review, but not
>> extensive enough to require a new LC.
>> 
>> Here's the definition that the authors would like to add to the document:
>> 
>> 
>>    Class:
>>    A class "identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol"
>>    (Quoted from [RFC1034], Section 3.6). "The DNS tags all data with a
>>    class as well as the type, so that we can allow parallel use of
>>    different formats for data of type address." (Quoted from [RFC1034],
>>    Section 2.2). In practice, the class for nearly every query is "IN".
>>    There are some queries for "CH", but they are usually for the
>>    purposes of information about the server itself rather than for a
>>    different type of address.
>> 
>> Please let us know your opinions yea or nay by Monday, Sept. 10,
>> midnight UTC.
> 
> i don't think this def'n serves the need. we need to speak more truth:
> 
> "The Class tag was weakly defined, such that either a zone can have data in multiple classes, or each class can have its own zone cut hierarchy, and so neither interpretation can be relied upon by DNS protocol implementers."
> 
> then go on to "in practice..."
> 
> -- 
> P Vixie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org