Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] A nudge on the new terms in draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Fri, 10 February 2017 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.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 1DF121297EA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 05:12:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 RSbhSvJjMlcz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 05:12:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF8751296F8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 05:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 05:12:29 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 05:12:29 -0800
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] A nudge on the new terms in draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis
Thread-Index: AQHSglLSM9FEBIFpVU6ShiTd1bkEtaFibE8A
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:12:28 +0000
Message-ID: <310D014B-1B3F-420C-A411-DEF6A67016D5@icann.org>
References: <390DDFE7-E70F-4E4E-96AB-AECFE25672E0@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <390DDFE7-E70F-4E4E-96AB-AECFE25672E0@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1e.0.170107
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3569559150_1770826219"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/2fhbC-I7QBKCRPkISAj8DrcM93A>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] A nudge on the new terms in draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:12:34 -0000

On 2/8/17, 16:31, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Hoffman" <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

>    The authors have tentatively made some substantial changes to the draft, 
     to define "domain name"

I have a fundamental problem with that, meaning that a document within DNSOP is defining domain names.  Work I did to write (the still in progress) draft on Domain Names has led me to believe that domain names are a concept beyond the DNS protocol.  On the other hand, the DNS protocol and operators of it, deserve to have a definition in place, so I'm not totally convinced this is a bad idea.

Diving into the definition contained in the draft though, it needs work.  Referring to:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-04, for "Domain Name" and "Label" :

) Domain name:  An ordered list of zero or more labels.

) Label:  An ordered list of zero or more octets and which makes up a
       portion of a domain name.

This is a circular definition which makes it quite meaningless.  E.g., "A is a string of B's" and "B is a component of A."

I don't have a suggested fix.  In as much as this isn't worth the paper you are reading this on, I've been trying to find time to update my draft on Domain Names, including, for now, rules on what would make a good definition.  I only mention this to express my frustration over not having something better to offer.

The closest I have to a suggestion is to put any definition of Domain Name in a DNS terminology document strictly in the context of documentation on the DNS protocol, at least for now.