IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Wed, 03 January 2018 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 DF7CE124C27 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:16:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 L78RO_d5IAoq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (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 8D9A11201F8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:e453:c2ff:feb8:9501] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:e453:c2ff:feb8:9501]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B610662C08 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:16:37 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1514985397; bh=iJ0yS0eLRaKHfuEll7Bw/hVzLF6hL8Zc7eFU9B/b2mM=; h=To:From:Date; b=a8Qclra5Xa0aHSZlFWGYYELmcLUyQzYNVHuANa2q4XWSCrUvveJppuZcgdCnIdEUX 30C5PFGbtG0vZHEuoJu8shH2rBxPlhWJd0M+f8ztEvmlCC7Z2sVaEmmLc2PKjztq3j UXs62ijsOgaifvMPTDTATvkoItdKh/rcpPBilLJM=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <F8509291-AAA0-49FC-BF84-21C3ECAF9813@vpnc.org> <20171218131223.yfu5ntzdyjivlnzi@nic.fr> <5A381173.5000906@redbarn.org>
From: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <cd7672e0-a427-b3cf-8509-0df5946fe38e@nic.cz>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:16:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5A381173.5000906@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SxjA6YSUxWpkChBm5IqiNaYDOoc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME
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, 03 Jan 2018 13:16:42 -0000

On 18.12.2017 20:05, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> As I mentioned in this errata
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4983>, I think RFC 2308 was
>> wrong in redefining QNAME. My personal preference would be to change
>> the second paragraph to "RFC 2308 proposed another definition,
>> different from the original one. Since it is actually a different
>> concept, it would be better to find another name for it. Here, QNAME
>> retains the original definition of RFC 1034."
> 
> +1.

+1, yes please.
-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email