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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 30 August 2017 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 4D0BD133298 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 06:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 RmYgZLHuAo3M for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 06:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 E1B8E133296 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 06:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.111] (50-1-98-42.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v7UDVmoZ014356 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 06:31:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-42.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.42] claimed to be [10.32.60.111]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 06:32:53 -0700
Message-ID: <F56E892C-8096-42F5-9DAE-CF9373058499@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170830030818.luqglgowaj5xgrv3@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <149894524329.526.18431408698564464455@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170824142147.lshdlmjv62nojd32@nic.fr> <f3e75bd0-b398-1b6a-db3f-ecafd4f0c610@nic.cz> <20170824222734.C786E831AA5D@rock.dv.isc.org> <4DC2EF4E-8922-4531-958C-FC4BEF75EAFA@powerdns.com> <06a96a6e59d14d378098013966f6641b@mxph4chrw.fgremc.it> <AD596392-BCD6-46DB-A0CA-9FC2C05DA026@powerdns.com> <2185536740e34a04977989f5dd5dec51@mxph4chrw.fgremc.it> <20170830030818.luqglgowaj5xgrv3@mx4.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NTAYoMcGCKzSTZK6s9-neMBihaM>
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:32:54 -0000

On 29 Aug 2017, at 20:08, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Speaking as one of the presumed editors of post-7719 -- one who is,
> so-presumed, supposed to sort this problem out -- I hope it's ok to
> state _very strongly_ that I appreciate the extensive discussion of
> this issue.  I think this is very much one of the kinds of knotty
> terminological problems that has created enormous difficulty for
> people approaching the DNS for the first time.  Not only are terms
> hard to understand; but when you come across them, they seem to be
> slippery.
>
> At the same time, and taking off my editor hat for the moment, I am
> quite uncomfortable having a terminology document (which is what this
> thread is about) make the term not-slippery.  It _is_ slippery in the
> reference documents.  I don't think it helps us to try to settle those
> disputes.  I think 7719-bis can do two things:
>
>     1.  Document, as clearly as possible, the nature of the ambiguity.
>     This thread has helped, but I bet (I haven't checked with my
>     co-editors) that a ¶ well-worked-out on the list (not necessarily
>     the WG please note) would be welcome.
>
>     2.  Define, as clearly as possible and using new terms, the
>     distinctions in question and provide names for them.  These could
>     be, of course, names not previously known.
>
> I emphasise again that clarity of definitions is, at least for me, 
> quite important, so ambiguous examples are super valuable.  Thanks!

As another co-editor of 7719-bis, I strongly concur with Andrew. I have 
been flagging all the messages in this thread and waiting for it to 
peter out before suggesting wording. If someone who is invested in this 
thread can propose text for 1 and 2, that would help because then others 
who are invested in the thread can comment and we can get good wording 
before the editors try.

--Paul Hoffman