Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

Edward Lewis <> Tue, 03 November 2015 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E5B1ACCFF for <>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:26:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.43
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eFMo6_TteeNu for <>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92F511ACD03 for <>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:26:39 -0800
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:26:39 -0800
From: Edward Lewis <>
To: "" <>, joel jaeggli <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01
Thread-Index: AQHREwVkl+Abwf0rI0iIbqxdzTcep56Kdb8AgAASngCAAAd4AIABY7UA
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 21:26:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3529463188_2003272"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Tim WIcinski <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 21:26:43 -0000

On 11/3/15, 18:13, "DNSOP on behalf of Suzanne Woolf"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>Agree with Joel here— there’s useful review for it in DNSOP *and*
>elsewhere IMHO.

The document has three goals:
1) Define Domain Names
2) Develop "helper" terminology to go along with the concept
3) Perhaps, if this is not increasing scope too much, explore issues
related to how Domain Names are resolved.

To achieve these goals, the start is to document the existing practices
(plural) for handling of what is collectively thought to be domain names.
DNSOP certainly has a lot of expertise in that regard, so a discussion in
the WG would be helpful and even a necessary first step.  And the
inventory of expertise within DNSOP certainly can help advance an informed
opinion on each of the goals.

But I caution against (and I realize that this is not being suggested)
maturing the conversation too greatly within DNSOP.  What I mean is that
for a definition of Domain Name to be adequately developed we need non-DNS
input.  Let me emphasize that Suzanne has that right in the clip above, so
I believe there is general understanding of what I'm trying to convey.

To drop below hand-waving, sitting in DNSSD and DBOUND this week I
experienced a few fits of "there's gotta be clarity on naming."  And
that's just in two DNS-derived WGs.  Homenet will face this, and they have
gotten back to naming issues (referring to the routing threads dominating
the mail list for a while), they will need at least to have a better set
of terminology (second goal).  I'm not being complete here, just dropping
in some "points of data."

I'm welcome to a discussion of this on the DNSOP WG mailing list.  I
haven't looked at the agenda for Thursday, I imagine it is full.  Still,
if there's a desire to have an "advertisement" of the draft I'd be willing
to do so - me not expecting to do so.  If you want to consider this for
another WG meeting, I'm sure there will be something to discuss.