Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11

"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Thu, 09 August 2018 05:04 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.com>
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 756B7130EFF; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 22:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IMnomF4XYSEp; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 22:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 325E21294D7; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 22:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id AB78C969994CB; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 06:04:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.39) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 06:04:13 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.158]) by dggemm422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 13:04:09 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
CC: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11
Thread-Index: AQHULxULhoBQUhvix0G0TvRkwvAepaS2Z1eAgAB3HsA=
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 05:04:09 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD8BB306@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <153373205122.6368.16143820330220001109@ietfa.amsl.com> <C8F7BE0B-07B2-43F7-9710-06C0C05EDDAC@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <C8F7BE0B-07B2-43F7-9710-06C0C05EDDAC@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.143]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_owXgz4AN5hsZgZwmOy60KTjBrU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11
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, 09 Aug 2018 05:04:18 -0000

Hi Paul,
I am OK with your response
Thanks
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 5:57 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; dnsop@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11

On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:40 AM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.  In section 2 the term DNAME is mentioned and while CNAME is 
> specified DNAME is not (maybe reference RFC6672?)

We have been trying to use this document to define terms. In the case of DNAME, it doesn't appear to actually mean anything (at least, I couldn't find an RFC that said what the D was for). I suspect it was the early DNS folks being cute, something along the lines of "D is bigger than C". Having said that, we will add a reference without adding an explanation.

> 2. In section 5 "Most resorece record " typo.

Thanks!

> 3. This is more a comment and since I did not follow the progress of 
> the document I am not sure the motivation here. Reading the text I 
> noticed that in the definition of referrals in section 4 the text 
> include also what looks to me like logic starting from the third 
> paragraph. I was wondering why is it here and not in one of the 
> standard track documents and referenced here. I saw that this is a big change from RFC7719.

Yes, that all came from the extensive WG discussion. You are correct that there is not an RFC that says "here are the kinds of referrals and what they mean", but there was a strong desire that we define "referrals" because that term is used in many other documents in many contexts. Someone could (maybe SHOULD) write a "DNS referrals" RFC, and the terminology-ter document (if such a thing comes into existence) could rip out this section and refer to it.

The main thing here is that this document doesn't change an existing definition of "referrals". We just kinda realized that we had to get it written down the first time.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art