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

Dave Crocker <> Thu, 12 July 2018 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33B6130E4B for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ivwU3w2mxV0G for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99187130DDF for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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;; 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 <>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>, Benno Overeinder <>, DNSOP WG <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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"



Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking