Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 12 July 2018 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 D33B6130E4B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
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 ivwU3w2mxV0G for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 99187130DDF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w6CDBoKE022089 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:11:51 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1531401112; bh=yzk9R/Bz8M6pOjYRQTTgyJ1e7T1ZaFZWzIDaNjtNkIg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=hoj0OTFU+9kCULTQHzazsYAFLGfV/Q/0CsnZG+qKT6wVRSuZumkrcVGs+oF+7UPFM cqeaOQI2Qr6oE6Pi4JGQ9tU2W/pFCcaDH5isBBRotDtHTKgCiqR5Xc7qkFGT7c0mpG lzzDDCw6ro9s45Vqri3MpxWgBT3p4u63v5MBIa5Y=
To: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl>, DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <60eb1c1a-5a3a-5908-27c1-7b3cf587eb14@NLnetLabs.nl> <20180706152250.n7242t2holox6bgq@nic.fr> <d29c02f6-f092-0092-9ac2-ee5d0f1e2e14@dcrocker.net> <CAKW6Ri7aLCywWBHScq6L_LyFpQ29ncpye1YBedwpoVZ0s1+6Sg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Message-ID: <c0578489-2ec9-c627-543c-bb712609c6ab@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:09:14 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKW6Ri7aLCywWBHScq6L_LyFpQ29ncpye1YBedwpoVZ0s1+6Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/W4x4BZN0F6R6yKv1hwlmSjwm4Pw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 12 Jul 2018 13:09:35 -0000

On 7/12/2018 3:09 AM, Dick Franks wrote:
>>    So there's now text in attrleaf that explains about hierarchy, top,
>>    highest, and the original presentation convention of right, but
>>    noting that other presentations are possible.
> 
> 
> IMO unnecessary.
> This will inevitably either overlap or conflict with the draft 
> RFC7719-bis DNS terminology document.

I don't understand what 'overlap' you think will exist, but am pretty 
sure I don't agree.


> Better to use already battle-hardened terminology throughout and add 
> RFC7719-bis citation.

If it is that battle-hardened for this type of use, then there is no 
doubt a single term in the draft that has already gained widespread use.

Which one is it?


> 
>>   It then declares the term 'global' as referring to the node name of
>>    interest and only uses that term in the rest of the document.
>>
> 
> "global" does not tick the right box for me.

And yet that's the distinguishing name of the attrleaf table in the 
drafts and has been for quite a long time.  There haven't been any 
objections to that term until now.


> Perhaps the underscore-prefixed label (sequence? / tree?) needs to be 
> described as subordinate to (or rooted at?) a "principal name".

Perhaps you have some usability data that demonstrates pragmatic 
superiority of a particular choice over 'global' for /this/ kind of use 
and can point to the entry in the bis document that already defines it?

Note that the choice echoes the use of 'global dns' that /is/ listed, to 
get at the semantics of the 'reach' for the highest-level underscore name.


>        (Well, there are a couple of places where 'highest' was needed as
>     clarification.)
> 
> Stephane: "more/most general"

Except that that has no obvious semantic merit, whereas 'highest' is 
directly motivated by referring to position in a hierarchy.


> otherwise: "closer/closest to the root"

Why?


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net