Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis: hopefully ready for WG Last Call

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 22 October 2020 20:55 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 0E3ED3A100D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 BhZ4kN56vfMn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (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 2B0183A100C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:55:04 -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]:46240) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1kVhbw-00097X-30 (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 21:55:00 +0100
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 21:55:00 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20201019164810.GA28178@sources.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2010222151450.4712@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <C0C343BA-D0A6-46A0-90C8-053793BC5F40@icann.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2010141752020.8465@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20201019164810.GA28178@sources.org>
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/Ls4Y91duSLjeREe0dA3ds36XpmA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis: hopefully ready for WG Last Call
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, 22 Oct 2020 20:55:07 -0000

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
>  Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
>
> > Section 3, algorithm step 5: what is a "hidden QTYPE"?
>
> The original QTYPE, which may be "hidden" by a substitution to another
> QTYPE (see section 2 "a QTYPE selected by the resolver to hide the
> original QTYPE"). This was not in RFC 7816. Would you prefer we settle
> on "original QTYPE"?

I don't have a preference for any particular term, just that terminology
should be defined and used in a consistent way throughout the spec, so
that if you grep the draft for "hidden" (or whatever) you can find out
what what it means, and you can easily find every place where it is
relevant. ("elegant variation" is a bad thing in technical writing.)

> > Step 6, what is the "minimised QTYPE"?
>
> The opposite of "hidden QTYPE", it is the QTYPE choosen by the
> resolver (NS was recommended in RFC 7816, but it is A in 7816-bis).

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Great Orme Head to the Mull of Galloway: West 4, backing southwest 5 to 7,
veering west 4 to 6 later. Slight or moderate. Rain for a time, showers later.
Good, occasionally moderate.