Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan <> Wed, 29 November 2017 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAFF120724 for <>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 06:08:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=j7dwpFs4; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=CHpNDvrd
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Koq1OK2s6hQ for <>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 06:08:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4B52127369 for <>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 06:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E84BD337 for <>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:08:11 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1511964491; bh=Dlefu1v8gSHmJvR910CFnAl8VH3gdSPOk3/QrSbeEAc=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=j7dwpFs4gTbRH6FN9Pcy0alnC+PNNlrx2744bRJ0fW1bpY1FCZCgUI2o6woJ50DKH ixE6hKjma9ioxZ0+URNwVVzeI1MUd3vsqJayAQ52rp246PSiwgvlNHJxjkBymfOieR K3ABdZQ7tHMv4HnrUhZDm/QC7dCT0HxC8IvOUldY=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BLbU31mY04Ky for <>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:08:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:08:06 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1511964485; bh=Dlefu1v8gSHmJvR910CFnAl8VH3gdSPOk3/QrSbeEAc=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CHpNDvrdpxiWRBFtPWgiS+c1U3z45415Bk9q1I5HtE/Bg1UKBfFzd2gJadx5/EwAZ 4wF9FCIuIpuCeTKngECmWkOJ/ZtHY/Yd1oOfZjaUl6X3gH9aBz2xlEJ/t+3vExHpou NR8qqN9/BE4rTarL39QxcQXe79TqbDQsmXtyo5uQ=
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:08:13 -0000

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:55:29PM +0000, P Vix wrote:
> Please do not write anything that blurs or softens the clear language of downwards-ness in 1034. If you can't keep the clear spirit and intent of the existing document then please write nothing at all.

I don't believe 1034 is anywhere near as clear as you are insisting it
is; and the empirical evidence of that lack of clarity is the very
thing you feel the need to recant.  If the WG believes otherwise, then
I think it is free to write the definition as it wishes, but only if
it removes me as an editor of the terminology document.

I do wish to make the definition clear, and I have no complaint where
the definition might note that not every operator agrees about
providing upward referrals (the text proffered already says that, I
think).  But I shall not include a change to the definition of
referrals such that upward referrals are defined away.  They exist,
today, all over the Internet, and it would be extremely foolish
lexicography to attempt to hide that.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan