IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 18 December 2017 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 B53641289B0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 05:12:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ksshjFiSg9BD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 05:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 983CD12785F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 05:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C98C28243F; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 26B71282482; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF6F28243F; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD396423549; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 14036401D4; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:23 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20171218131223.yfu5ntzdyjivlnzi@nic.fr>
References: <F8509291-AAA0-49FC-BF84-21C3ECAF9813@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F8509291-AAA0-49FC-BF84-21C3ECAF9813@vpnc.org>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.2
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-3-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000016, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.12.18.130316
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/CEBxwKIgG4FGoXxZ1l8g7O6WUQE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME
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: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:12:25 -0000

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 07:30:27AM -0800,
 Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote 
 a message of 16 lines which said:

> Some of the new terms added to the terminology-bis draft
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/)since
> RFC 7719 can expose what some (but not all) people perceive as lack
> of clarity in RFC 1034/1035. This week, we hope you will look at the
> definition in the draft for "QNAME".

As I mentioned in this errata
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4983>, I think RFC 2308 was
wrong in redefining QNAME. My personal preference would be to change
the second paragraph to "RFC 2308 proposed another definition,
different from the original one. Since it is actually a different
concept, it would be better to find another name for it. Here, QNAME
retains the original definition of RFC 1034."

Otherwise, if the WG prefers, I can live with the current text :-(

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email