Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 25 July 2019 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 DDE8112023D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gsMhsUwtbRmI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) (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 E0F15120319 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:45396) by ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1hqerH-0016I5-KT (Exim 4.92) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:36:39 +0100
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:36:39 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1907251021350.23797@bofh.nohats.ca>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251531570.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <155658243855.16316.18029354473288109146@ietfa.amsl.com> <20190724210726.GA6827@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251152480.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <624835DE-8E63-4C89-9799-136464B26E34@gmx.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251225140.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1907251021350.23797@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/KAs0VN01MOmy3CdhR_LsyiAtDVQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 25 Jul 2019 14:36:50 -0000

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>; wrote:
>
> I dislike Do53, because then we should really have Do53-over-TCP as DoT
> and Do53-over-https as DoH. If we call it "DNS-over-TCP" than really
> what we are doing is running (classic) DNS over TCP, and we shouldn't
> midway the discussion rename "DNS" to "Do53".

These abbreviations are about identifying the transport that is being used
for the DNS messages. One problem with Do53 is that it isn't specific
about the transport, because it covers both UDP and TCP. But it's a handy
abbreviation for DNS over traditional transports. It doesn't identify DNS
as a whole, just the framing of DNS messages in UDP and TCP.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>;  http://dotat.at/
a just distribution of the rewards of success