Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 07 April 2017 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 DC99B12420B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gYzBQvEK3Zjn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 4705C1289B5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.173] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v37IdeN6059613 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:39:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [10.32.60.173]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: "Andrew McConachie" <andrew@depht.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:39:53 -0700
Message-ID: <F7AA606E-35F0-4303-809B-4A51D990D044@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <3055f4dc-900c-0a5a-aba4-4a6034b366b8@depht.com>
References: <148942077219.17007.342057944218385620@ietfa.amsl.com> <3055f4dc-900c-0a5a-aba4-4a6034b366b8@depht.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/69e3LNZ3UL2VPAhlHlNS43mqHC0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.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: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 18:40:09 -0000

(I'm surprised our philosophy-minded folks didn't answer this. I'll take 
a stab, acknowledging that I'm only a philosophy tourist.)

On 30 Mar 2017, at 13:41, Andrew McConachie wrote:

> If a domain name is made up of labels, and labels are made up of 
> octets, then can there be non-digital representations of domain names?

Yes. The octets in the labels can be encoded into writing systems, and 
there can be a commonly-recognized display format for the representation 
of a group of labels.

> For example, if I spray paint 'www.example' on the side of a bus, is 
> it not a domain name because it is made up of paint instead of octets?

It is a rendering (in paint, on a bus) a domain name in a 
commonly-accepted display format. Neither the paint nor the bus is the 
domain name.

Some history related to representation versus essence: 
https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/what-the-finger-pointing-to-the-moon-analogy-really-means-from-zen-buddhism-the-buddha-in-the-shurangama-sutra/

> I don't see anything in this document restricting the terms to 'on the 
> wire' definitions. So I assume that the scope of 'domain name' 
> includes non-digital instantiations. Perhaps what's needed isn't so 
> much a new definition for label, but clarification on the scope of 
> these terms and their definitions.

I'm not sure that us going into the ontology of domain names would help 
someone reading the document.

--Paul Hoffman