[DNSOP] draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt - some comments

[Normen Kowalewski <[e-mail]>]

Daer Stephane, Paul and DNSOP WG, 

1. it was noted in todays meeting that the the “add" is not based on any underlying rfc, and thus might be somewhat  too vague.
+1 on that

draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt says:
      Applications Doing DNS (ADD):  Applications that act as stub
      resolvers.  This is in contrast to the way that applications
      traditionally have gotten DNS information, which is to use system
      calls to the operating system on the computer, and have the
      operating system act as the stub resolver.  "Applications Doing
      DNS" is not limited to particular transports: it applies equally
      to DNS-over-TLS, DNS-over-HTTPS, Do53, and future DNS transports.
      ( Temporary note, to be removed before publication as an RFC:
      there is a mailing list discussing Applications Doing DNS at
      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add )

While I agree that “add” today covers discussion around the case described in here, but the reason that it covers it  is because “add” acts as a "catch all bucket" for “various DNS things not well defined”.
If we want to cover the case of an application acts as/embed a stub resolver, we may want to define a term (and draft) that covers exactly that, instead of using the much wider term.
 
I wonder if something meant by "add" today, might have to drop from being meant by “add” tomorrow after that feature becomes a well defined RFC?
Terminology would for me have to be less prone to change its meaning over time.

Thus I  propose to remove “add” from the draft.

2.  Share the notion that not all terms are equally well aligned with the names of their underlying transport. Given that Do53 flows via plain UDP/TCP, one could argue that this just means:  IP is the transport => “DoIP”, but that feels really awkward to me, and why create something new…  so keep is simple and retain Do53, enough people use it already.     

3. And then, as per Geoff "get on with it”, because the other terms are all useful.


BR,

Normen Kowalewski