Re: [DNSOP] Definition of QNAME (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-06.txt

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Thu, 24 August 2017 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 4571A124E15 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 dRcmxovU65ev for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (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 A3E2A13237B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1220:80c:e077:c603:af89:3d6e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1220:80c:e077:c603:af89:3d6e]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46CEF60733 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:48:31 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1503589711; bh=LIdRke1VXh2plOcnEF2sF3Rjm+aJd5PT7KdQ0gt60nk=; h=To:From:Date; b=BetyTqtBQxIV8Hf7rZ8SCol3YAR/gVejAhZsUNJgtLS8Cpcl3qBXKY6uHwhMjYxFC ZDWHN/JUrwG/4SXayfY62drNrhF7ct0nCszSqVu12/ShO1cmh/M4zPzfvMfviw8cGy UxNtUV/qGSAkf7qXCe7n406FjfgqRORd9WGAPLfQ=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <149894524329.526.18431408698564464455@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170824142147.lshdlmjv62nojd32@nic.fr>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <f3e75bd0-b398-1b6a-db3f-ecafd4f0c610@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:48:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170824142147.lshdlmjv62nojd32@nic.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FBFwTjwA4nyVEFp2IPaw27n7rjQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Definition of QNAME (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-06.txt
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: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:48:34 -0000


On 24.8.2017 16:21, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 02:40:43PM -0700,
>  internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote 
>  a message of 45 lines which said:
> 
>>         Title           : DNS Terminology
>>         Authors         : Paul Hoffman
>>                           Andrew Sullivan
>>                           Kazunori Fujiwara
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-06.txt
> 
> One of the issues I would like to discuss for terminology-bis is the
> definition of QNAME. I filed this erratum against RFC 2308 :
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2308&eid=4983
> 
> Five months later, it has not been accepted or rejected. So, it is
> time to poke the WG: do you think we should mark the RFC 2308 as
> wrong, and keep only the definition of RFC 1034?

I vote for keeping RFC 1034 definition and declaring RFC 2308 wrong.

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC