[DNSOP] Terminology draft - validation nits

Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net> Sun, 29 January 2017 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <casey@deccio.net>
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 5C8FA129989 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:20:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=deccio.net
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 eZVdzcnpJY3K for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (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 3C4EA126CD8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id j13so85600027iod.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:20:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=deccio.net; s=google; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :to; bh=IL9ibqfTKyKHZtAtPUIbm3kpplir+m9dio3epLey2RY=; b=cbkMz+ZaKSmdhJrxosF+fDwDmEjJtj8Iqxifn+sShjVC8JjnThI79AOVzzJwHgarX+ 4/+ptjHw0+xFw62NweY/UI9+91y1/7ikszQMRSybR1N0JkeWHA/wr+N5YhS3lbz9SsGO Sedz7bVRAfLaAl7IuE5H4LoymqQdlpWt09YiE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:to; bh=IL9ibqfTKyKHZtAtPUIbm3kpplir+m9dio3epLey2RY=; b=Sr27DLomguOi5JOV8zHj+r9ryYFVqexMA7YlGFhXdGQqA8KgK1LYCqjFYmsVe02hJE 86WCOEMAkkQyEhwfXekYDVINn4QRXqsFFCiOyQvGduZIl389sy8BSopDEoOJY88fr+zD udjGjCn8Wk23U377dLFOPa4K9rM+i+KZWo3PlfpAb2vObF2BfNQLFQj4GD0cSKkNcqq9 WGyw3fLjpJbV2sePDWY7WERZ97Q0HDmt6Mw3GAXpKJh41uMc5gIpUI7J9Mav1kozKTgf zlLItpP7+AXvXtnnMNM1tXBb1y735LAoZMMQdz7VGREbdwC4oZ7Mqfc/hsod8Ha1aiEZ hfJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIbJCQYMJlBcNTIPiNKvQRsi6Bj7NGG0PymWbdgBFVgRreceknKFVILan5GCFdfew==
X-Received: by 10.107.132.100 with SMTP id g97mr13062907iod.174.1485649216299; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:20:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (c-24-10-162-10.hsd1.ut.comcast.net. [24.10.162.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 202sm3958762ith.7.2017.01.28.16.20.15 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:20:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Message-Id: <BC1FFA81-31BE-4DF6-93C2-0641634B9AD7@deccio.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:20:14 -0700
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/8O4gkSSyeOueLHpmSWnFyRQeiUA>
Subject: [DNSOP] Terminology draft - validation nits
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: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:20:20 -0000

Thanks for the efforts that went into the new revision of the DNS Terminology draft.  Just a few comments on the new "Validation" section:

> The first two definitions above consider the only validity of...

Should be "only the" instead of "the only" (that typo was inherited from the text I contributed).

> The terms "authentication" and "verification" are used	
> interchangeably with "validation" in the sense of the third	
> definition above.

In the sense of (only) the third definition, only "authentication" is interchangeable with "validation".  However, "verification" and "validation" are interchangeable for all three definitions.  This can be seen by searching "verify" and "verification" in RFC 4033 and RFC 4034, for example.

My recommendation is that 1) this sentence is rewritten as follows:

> The term "verification" is used	
> interchangeably with "validation", in the sense of the third	
> definition above.


2) either the term "Validation:" is changed to "Validation/Verification:" and/or a new term is added: "Verification: (see Validation)";

If some of the references (e.g., from RFC 4033) for verification should be added to the text, then I can help with that, but I'm not sure it's necessary.

Casey