Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Fri, 31 August 2018 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 79A87130E20; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 WgeG-d_564Xl; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1145C130DED; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:10:57 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:10:57 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis@ietf.org>, "suzworldwide@gmail.com" <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, "dnsop-chairs@ietf.org" <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUQDBScPd4F9hitkywiHhXJnl8h6Taf1MA
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:10:56 +0000
Message-ID: <5EC914D6-EB2F-439E-9DE4-29853DE3B6F6@icann.org>
References: <153561293370.3144.18070168241164270027.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <153561293370.3144.18070168241164270027.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <085BA1B068BCE14F8062453106B3565E@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Ea2Ji-wsfln5NzW5myPCeIk1XlU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)
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: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:11:00 -0000

On Aug 30, 2018, at 3:08 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
> General:
> 
> The document seems to omit a definition for the term "class," although it is
> used in many places an clearly has a very precise meaning in DNS parlance. It
> would be nice to see one added, as I got a bit confused when I hit the
> definition for "Class independent" in section 5 and realized that I'd been
> conflating "RR type" with "Class" -- and couldn't find guidance in this document
> to clarify the difference.

Good catch. I'll ask my co-authors if they want to add a trivial one:

Class: A class "identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol" (Quoted from <xref target="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 <xref target="RFC1034"/>, Section 2.2)

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §2:
> 
>> Multicast DNS:  "Multicast DNS (mDNS) provides the ability to perform
>>    DNS-like operations on the local link in the absence of any
>>    conventional Unicast DNS server.
> 
> This definition seems to be a little oversimplified in light of the mechanisms
> described by draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid and draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay.

Agree, but neither of those drafts gave much explanation of how their proxying and forwarding affected RFC 6762.


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §5:
> 
>> Master file:  "Master files are text files that contain RRs in text
>>    form.  Since the contents of a zone can be expressed in the form
>>    of a list of RRs a master file is most often used to define
> 
> Nit: "...list of RRs, a master..."
>                    ^
> 

We were pretty strict about not making editorial fixes to quotations from source RFCs.


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §5:
>> Owner:  The domain name where a RR is found ([RFC1034], Section 3.6).
> 
> Nit: "...an RR..." (see RFC 7322 §1, CMOS 10.9)

There too.

> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §6:
> 
>>    The idea of a primary master is only used by [RFC2136],
>>    and is considered archaic in other parts of the DNS.
>> 
>>    The idea of a primary master is only used in [RFC1996] and
>>    [RFC2136].
> 
> These sentences seem redundant and partially contradictory. I suspect the first
> one should be removed.

Yep.

> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §6:
> 
>> Privacy-enabling DNS server:  "A DNS server that implements DNS over
>>    TLS [RFC7858] and may optionally implement DNS over DTLS
>>    [RFC8094]."  (Quoted from [RFC8310], Section 2)
> 
> This definition seems incomplete in light of the mechanism defined in
> draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https.

Agree, but it is what we have as a quotation.


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Acknowledgements:
> 
>> The following is the Acknowledgements for RFC 7719.  Additional
>> acknowledgements may be added as this draft is worked on.
> 
> This feels out of date. Consider removing.
> 

Good catch, done.

--Paul Hoffman