IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 16 June 2015 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E2D1ACE6C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 vnJFSUo2bR6G for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]) (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 010601ACE6B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:47467) by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Z4nbh-0005Yu-Wt (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:56:37 +0100
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1Z4nbh-0006CC-4C (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:56:37 +0100
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:56:37 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <051A63DF-BA61-4BD2-BCD9-147B10658CE0@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1506161045370.23307@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20150526153132.306.56516.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1506050005550.30373@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <081EDE00-3FB4-4135-8CE7-149F73E4A74A@vpnc.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1506120210250.8353@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <051A63DF-BA61-4BD2-BCD9-147B10658CE0@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/I8d0OGjqKxj_QErbfVO4C_FCAl0>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:56:44 -0000

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> > Regarding specific definitions, what about my suggestions under "more
> > definitions" at
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg14243.html
>
> Some of those definitions were speculative, and I think it is better to
> defer them.

All of the definitions were based on quotes from RFCs, apart from
"iterative query" (which has an illustrative citation) and "resolution"
which is pervasive but never defined because it has an obvious grammatical
link to "resolver".

> >>> The definition of "authoritative data" is still wrong.
> >>
> >> We have done the best we can with this, given that RFC 1034's definition
> >> is in dispute.
> >
> > I thought we had cleared it up. Why not adopt my corrected definition at
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg14243.html ?
>
> There was disagreement on the list about your statement:
>
> In RFC 1034, zone cuts are clearly defined to occur between labels, above
> each delegation point, so it is correct to define authoritative data as
> being above the zone cut, and this unambiguously excludes delegation NS
> RRsets.

Do you have a link? I didn't see any replies to my message.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty, Forth, Tyne, Dogger: Variable 3 or 4, becoming southwest 4
or 5, occasionally 6 later. Moderate in Forties, otherwise slight or moderate.
Occasional rain. Good, occasionally poor later.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email