Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt

"Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Sat, 08 April 2017 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.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 18CAA12778D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 06:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] 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 S4SR0lZFECgO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 06:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shannon.7bits.nl (shannon.7bits.nl [IPv6:2a01:1b0:202:40::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0630112778E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 06:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.137.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:610:666:0:f021:3c9d:c1a0:9cfd]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: peter) by shannon.7bits.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56B29C1B96; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 15:38:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 15:38:07 +0200
Message-ID: <51455D0A-0933-47D7-949A-7A9DB960E338@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <FD1D5AD8-6907-4144-AB31-F1226779CDE3@powerdns.com>
References: <148942077219.17007.342057944218385620@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170328143352.GA12923@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <FD1D5AD8-6907-4144-AB31-F1226779CDE3@powerdns.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/aXnHT4dgvfhG42VBWokGvmPVtMA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 13:38:11 -0000

On 5 Apr 2017, at 8:57, Peter van Dijk wrote:

> Hello Stephane,
>
> On 28 Mar 2017, at 16:33, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 08:59:32AM -0700,
>>  internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote
>>  a message of 45 lines which said:
>>
>>>         Title           : DNS Terminology
>>>         Authors         : Paul Hoffman
>>>                           Andrew Sullivan
>>>                           Kazunori Fujiwara
>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt
>>
>> The new definition of QNAME describes as equivalent two conflicting
>> definitions, the original one, in RFC 1034, and the one of RFC 2308,
>> which seems used only by this RFC. IMHO, we should keep only the RFC
>> 1034 definition.
>>
>> I filed an errata against RFC 2308
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4983>
>
> Notwithstanding your stubborn redefinition in 8020, the text in 2308 
> is correct and this erratum is wrong.

And to clarify, regardless of whether we agree on what the -right- 
definition of QNAME is, your erratum breaks 2308. After the sentence you 
replace, more sentences follow, and they no longer make sense after the 
replacement. Furthermore, 2308 relies on the definition of QNAME as it 
stands in 2308 today, so if you want to ‘fix’ the definition of 
QNAME in 2308, you need to make a lot more edits to it. (which given the 
terrible readability of 2308 is not the worst idea).

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/