Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 03 September 2018 15:34 UTC
Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 8FA4D1292AD; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 08:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 NJGqBcTsktCl; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 08:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (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 family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CDD6892C6; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 15:34:42 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5B8D548E.5080205@redbarn.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 08:34:38 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
CC: dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis.all@ietf.org
References: <4AA8656A-7D2F-4584-B84D-47E97483CCC2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AA8656A-7D2F-4584-B84D-47E97483CCC2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DNvUwomGWzP3l6jpL8hIVobLaZw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 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 implementers." then go on to "in practice..." -- P Vixie
- [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… StJohns, Michael
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… p vix
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Martin Hoffmann
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] type numbers, was Brief addition to t… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] type numbers, was Brief addition to t… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] type numbers, was Brief addition to t… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] type numbers, was Brief addition to t… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis dra… Suzanne Woolf