Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
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 62F2B1347DC
 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 1IA2-3-7mOJO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com
 [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FBFC134B45
 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.1.7] (fb1.lds3.event.aql.com [141.170.18.58])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70D852421249;
 Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:17:12 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdVc39kGZc1Kd-RsN=McWmoKLA5=AQPCJbCVkYxhTAAo6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:17:11 +0100
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>,
 dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <799422B9-F267-4227-8895-7620AAFDB901@rfc1035.com>
References: <149894524329.526.18431408698564464455@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <20170824142147.lshdlmjv62nojd32@nic.fr>
 <20170921034533.d2isi2idl7cyepea@mx4.yitter.info>
 <CAHPuVdVc39kGZc1Kd-RsN=McWmoKLA5=AQPCJbCVkYxhTAAo6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NSfGUqgPJk2KVMOUj4GDhp5GB5k>
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, 21 Sep 2017 13:17:17 -0000


> On 21 Sep 2017, at 14:12, Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Andrew Sullivan =
<ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>=20
>       To address this potential confusion, it is helpful to =
distinguish
>       between two meanings:
>=20
>       QNAME (original)  The name actually sent in the Question
>          Section in the orignal query, which is always echoed in the
>          (final) reply in the Question Section when the QR bit is set =
to
>          1.
>=20
>       QNAME (effective)  The name actually resolved, which is either =
the
>          name actually queried or else the last name in a CNAME chain =
as
>          defined in [RFC2308].

Maybe the definition of QNAME (effective) needs to be extended to =
include the result of NAPTR record processing? Says he running away =
quickly...