Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04.txt

Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com> Tue, 16 May 2017 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew@depht.com>
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 92115129AD2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=depht-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Xd1-AAn1LChm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D469D12EC0A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id d127so126353913wmf.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=depht-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:references:from:to:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=mxbG3mYO4LCV9hqkF+THOQ8y8YQ8IdsLzPRniUFLtq0=; b=D8dAFWyncA8Jn+0vUlckq2JKDBiJY7YWeJjIfYuTjszQS1GGm/Ozpe5URisfTVevY6 njUr+ToLCXkaJ45vP69KUcCPON+5ju7+AUmBEhkI71+c95LeQCOrGL8zrapZtF0Yz0De Ww2vgTjmRJqgzq/SbqYdekS8eUXzgKdwpBnycJlpbw51zz5ProsoDw+iiFm5xdOTZyUT eE01JAMM2rPtww4QGXyoF1DxufiiWFWkPXqtt3ba2Np1C3IU4vxDxMP/A8JCWzyUP3um yeEpWE+cdgAAG5vQsZg7GJJhL8ybF1+l8Ais/D3+uDsG7SkL128mP9YU0zlPhe8iBmKp +LmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:from:to:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=mxbG3mYO4LCV9hqkF+THOQ8y8YQ8IdsLzPRniUFLtq0=; b=DeRTO7ykXZuDypd4/U5VL19E5eqs3sZYsCqaC2NfZnzv5opllQdlPFvCrwl0q419Xr /pOMql6FxBmxPJ/1bw1CzRcZ94org7K5Yoka0+spyac/k8Ow+S93S/ikJGl2MGiUZysE Gij9pNnK1M7wn5q52l9xT9EFr+KwwiJJrxMvZQdnJqWnkRP2W3xoixmYD07gAADX3iuH 41VUyMU61hn/rInLGrECK+tXMf3oXl+vCRoAFizWGqn3B1tqrHbiXcJnfw+n7BAe+nl5 yuQZ9b1yr34voEzDMrzfq+ai21baOkzegJmU+2PB+jVnPixzueRRrEh6dLo0XC9ApK+d oFfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBmvSIUPXGcFgNsW3ORK7fYwLxQvLmegLiAmh4ZR8Kg84Y6XdF6 AFa4cbMNj4L0dcNU1UE=
X-Received: by 10.28.143.70 with SMTP id r67mr7474596wmd.1.1494952314035; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ANMC-3678.local ([2601:143:8003:2fd0:215a:b42c:5bfc:8316]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w186sm3827540wme.26.2017.05.16.09.31.52 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 May 2017 09:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
References: <149486024486.11940.15684743124758238626@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <385cc66e-4919-04ce-ab27-feca3537ae07@depht.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:31:51 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <149486024486.11940.15684743124758238626@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/2PLxFIm6uafN-vtL8-293GnGG-A>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 16 May 2017 16:36:09 -0000


On 5/15/17 10:57, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement
>          Authors         : Ted Lemon
>                            Ralph Droms
>                            Warren Kumari
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04.txt
> 	Pages           : 27
> 	Date            : 2017-05-15
>
> Abstract:
>     The Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC 6761
>     has been shown through experience to present unanticipated
>     challenges.  This memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive,
>     of the problems that have been identified.  In addition it reviews
>     the history of Domain Names and summarizes current IETF publications
>     and some publications from other organizations relating to Special-
>     Use Domain Names.
>
>
The use of the term 'meaning' in this document is problematic. Meaning 
is something that humans do, not machines. What I believe we're actually 
interested in is scoping and binding. How a name is scoped and what 
object it gets bound to, not what it means.

For example the text:
"Domain Names with unambiguous global meaning are preferable to
  Domain Names with local meaning which will be ambiguous.
  Nevertheless both globally-meaningful and locally-special names
  are in use and must be supported."

Should probably be changed to:
"Domain Names with unambiguous global bindings are preferable to
  Domain Names with local bindings which will be ambiguous.
  Nevertheless both globally-scoped and locally-scoped names
  are in use and must be supported."

This is more akin to how programming language designers discuss this 
subject.[1] I don't want to delve into the usage of 'meaning' in RFC 
2826 itself, but there are a couple other uses of 'meaning' in this I-D 
that I believe should be removed, and I am happy to send text if people 
agree.

I'm also worried that some readers of this document might interpret its 
use of 'global' or 'local' in a geographic sense, and not a scoping 
sense. But I don't know how to deal with this. Perhaps it's just a risk.

Thank you for all your hard work on this,
Andrew

[1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0227/