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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 16 May 2017 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 C06A0129C67 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 May 2017 12:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-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 kzESHkahPEiR for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 May 2017 12:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (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 B2F3612EAB0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2017 11:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id y201so138419164qka.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2017 11:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qp0A/qbfF8M5SrpqvBA9pS4ULFwU3pv0jdBpAKnyw+M=; b=UCNJNAmUK2QInJ9faGHzdQi/WHwMdXfHczBT8yNIW2yKsTJ+J3ho0TRQGQPoU3n9Me XkRvGq2JAnIHRqw9y4XchxuHOenuzpdrh8LEaKkZYwHbjPCWGkwHp1V5Gk1j0BVkXSL1 r57iHpVexLuC6QJB8L0lzTNP4MjayYpE/tFWSACSoqzNgjG83Ko6mXbAW2dZPDnkRkKs SkTGc8gBafcVpXsFiEBsv2kR+n3vN4nXBOpb3zm7/5Gl3JeWSdM8/2cL20QSbNgoQbIv uNqAA/iZph3/09c70S+mpCvQlieNK7+zLlqsfNNRJOWAPHMvwuGb/nOQStYF8ViXEbGH l7sQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qp0A/qbfF8M5SrpqvBA9pS4ULFwU3pv0jdBpAKnyw+M=; b=N2T2tawX9hBz9qfwt2/bquPzS1lEGJlKBB3R3jtX6oZp+eDLdkW3RBVQwEiwfp+EFO 22eRaMQlL++D4SIz+2lHsyDc02V240yqw09THJ+NHoibIa/MCC8QyijOmqJPgjVqt1MM K/Q1nDTEv+oKqSkEqK6AmXgpSdTFP8FdIXPBBjKR8ZhjIgsHflqdxP5evBzuUdn3W/uq dOy6emxsTw7D1YHBYxUauTrGVKv5dh5h4n80+H0rsIokRssRZzRSLe7TyHdJN9hAEcYw tcYgJwpfoXj/x7Hx9bTfAqTOMC5dnM+TZ860Z4L7MK/ytnWtL79vNXw4r7Y0GHK1oOll tbBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDc1cFr5KtoGGcbuLrYllpW95WYRo0E3r/xCRP92sgnfN6B9TYs HhPrNe9m13RHdQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.33.70 with SMTP id h67mr12683825qkh.163.1494961165827; Tue, 16 May 2017 11:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z53sm77460qth.43.2017.05.16.11.59.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 May 2017 11:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <385cc66e-4919-04ce-ab27-feca3537ae07@depht.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 14:59:23 -0400
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <78C25F2F-BD18-46CB-BB34-C58ABA79502A@fugue.com>
References: <149486024486.11940.15684743124758238626@ietfa.amsl.com> <385cc66e-4919-04ce-ab27-feca3537ae07@depht.com>
To: Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/8y1nDMAX99JkJIxdmB1tEZz6qCo>
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 19:03:58 -0000

I think that "meaning" is more likely to be understood than "binding," although I think your technical point is valid.   Same with global/local.   I'll see if I can add some clarifying text.   Thanks for the review!

> On May 16, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop