IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 29 November 2017 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 CEB2E127005 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:28:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=bksTDkdF; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=aWtk7h8x
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 A8Wp1AMIVIxi for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80813120725 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC299BD337 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511958492; bh=IYaKSSnIPxzUlCVl+uUSt5Or8TI+wQeq3m0FTUfVSx8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bksTDkdFhIAdkwRNIsrG+bFOXebi5I0k3e8ruDoPCwoh2T9C3XR7a1Nj4OrIU2a4y WZtPVsIKSn/9a5rFT1CKWCylL1Nat90JGvBTivtO+D3xO46aVAPsn4lAGji8mXcoy7 nD7gJyGIyk7f2LEDCK78UhlPkAW5rnDyCiFCnwNk=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6SbeNmsUo9ZT for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:28:11 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 07:28:11 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511958491; bh=IYaKSSnIPxzUlCVl+uUSt5Or8TI+wQeq3m0FTUfVSx8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aWtk7h8xBX12Q0Jurzzo30sMzz+diBHcFP/vXoPnm3jWNpXjMgidqIJSWY9CUURXd NImu+e3YnJvjANu5TToxRH1HHH4ouDSb9FfZb5aBDCJ3RiI79ObAFVpCuBWcMh9buH 03cu6P3mlj99T4Fj1wgFhCfNvWBSEkcGRnLneFZY=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171129122811.bydl23dadf53yzkd@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171128195025.ifzwsjk42wz7ard6@mx4.yitter.info> <5A1DEEE1.3070809@redbarn.org> <20171129014748.7rrm2tvwdnjdl6ss@mx4.yitter.info> <5A1E2491.9070805@redbarn.org> <20171129122101.mv7zlc6kdqe3ojnv@mx4.yitter.info> <13A36237-CA11-44F3-BA80-69302F7D14F9@redbarn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13A36237-CA11-44F3-BA80-69302F7D14F9@redbarn.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/A4d6_P1OzDcG_a85eHaZ3zQhnRA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:28:15 -0000

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:23:36PM +0000, P Vix wrote:
> 1034 cannot be reasonably read that way.

Sure it can.  See the discussion in draft-sullivan-dnsop-refer-down
and on the list not two weeks ago for how.  I think it should _not_ be
read that way, but an honest reader could read it that way, and the
terminology document is not the place to rule on the way people should
read a text.  We're supposed to be doing description, not prescription.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email