Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS

[Michael Sinatra <[e-mail]>]

On 3/19/18 11:14 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 19 Mar 2018, at 18:09, Artyom Gavrichenkov <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Another issue here is that, for some enterprises at least, there's no
>> single "internal network" anymore.
> 
> We don't need to enumerate every potential split DNS scenario (or how it's implemented). The original text says "there are many potential variants". That should be enough for this document. The simple example of one internal and one external net will do for illustrative purposes.

Rather than try for some physical demarcation like "firewall" or 
"network," why don't we simply say "organizationally-defined perimeter" 
or "perimeter defined by the organization," which leaves it vague enough 
to support the "many potential variants"?

E.g. in Paul H.'s original text

Instead of: "Where a corporate network serves up partly or completely 
different DNS inside and outside its firewall."

Use: "Where a corporate [enterprise?] network serves partly or 
completely different DNS based on a client's location inside or outside 
of a perimeter defined by that organization."

This also gives the enterprise organization both the authority (and 
onus) to define its perimeter in a reasonable logical way.

michael