Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11

Paul Hoffman <> Wed, 08 August 2018 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CA8130E6A; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:57:12 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lMS7kRf8LbT; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5542C130DCB; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:57:09 -0700
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:57:09 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <>
To: Roni Even <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11
Thread-Index: AQHULxULhoBQUhvix0G0TvRkwvAepaS2Z1eA
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 14:57:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11
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: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 14:57:13 -0000

On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:40 AM, Roni Even <> wrote:
> 1.  In section 2 the term DNAME is mentioned and while CNAME is specified DNAME
> is not (maybe reference RFC6672?)

We have been trying to use this document to define terms. In the case of DNAME, it doesn't appear to actually mean anything (at least, I couldn't find an RFC that said what the D was for). I suspect it was the early DNS folks being cute, something along the lines of "D is bigger than C". Having said that, we will add a reference without adding an explanation.

> 2. In section 5 "Most resorece record " typo.


> 3. This is more a comment and since I did not follow the progress of the
> document I am not sure the motivation here. Reading the text I noticed that in
> the definition of referrals in section 4 the text include also what looks to me
> like logic starting from the third paragraph. I was wondering why is it here
> and not in one of the standard track documents and referenced here. I saw that
> this is a big change from RFC7719.

Yes, that all came from the extensive WG discussion. You are correct that there is not an RFC that says "here are the kinds of referrals and what they mean", but there was a strong desire that we define "referrals" because that term is used in many other documents in many contexts. Someone could (maybe SHOULD) write a "DNS referrals" RFC, and the terminology-ter document (if such a thing comes into existence) could rip out this section and refer to it.

The main thing here is that this document doesn't change an existing definition of "referrals". We just kinda realized that we had to get it written down the first time.

--Paul Hoffman