Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

Paul Vixie <> Mon, 03 September 2018 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA4D1292AD; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 08:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJGqBcTsktCl; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 08:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 581D312008A; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 08:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:cd5a:2154:67e9:5abc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:cd5a:2154:67e9:5abc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CDD6892C6; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 15:34:42 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 08:34:38 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Suzanne Woolf <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 15:34:44 -0000

Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Hi all,
> During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that
> draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined
> it. This seemed to the authors and chairs like a reasonable thing to
> fix. It’s also important enough that we want WG review, but not
> extensive enough to require a new LC.
> Here's the definition that the authors would like to add to the document:
>     Class:
>     A class "identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol"
>     (Quoted from [RFC1034], Section 3.6). "The DNS tags all data with a
>     class as well as the type, so that we can allow parallel use of
>     different formats for data of type address." (Quoted from [RFC1034],
>     Section 2.2). In practice, the class for nearly every query is "IN".
>     There are some queries for "CH", but they are usually for the
>     purposes of information about the server itself rather than for a
>     different type of address.
> Please let us know your opinions yea or nay by Monday, Sept. 10,
> midnight UTC.

i don't think this def'n serves the need. we need to speak more truth:

"The Class tag was weakly defined, such that either a zone can have data 
in multiple classes, or each class can have its own zone cut hierarchy, 
and so neither interpretation can be relied upon by DNS protocol 

then go on to "in practice..."

P Vixie