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

Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com> Sat, 08 April 2017 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew@depht.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 170CF129432 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 06:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=depht-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 dSom6vwHgHLO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 06:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x232.google.com (mail-wr0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CB54129422 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 06:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x232.google.com with SMTP id c55so50300815wrc.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 Apr 2017 06:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=depht-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=jQF5dgySTjT3vTQgKDw68+Mva23RZKUkbytSXIVkaa4=; b=tOI8shnix2mrMB0bk7nSbEEMjFrC583O5VciJhYfEBdTceJNIrYZy4iQ0bCHyNouRa 6MeILNhUGvLyba5Tta46wt+MQOPG2qj+q6eETcUHUkwv8iZeS0bWf3d6Dej40SLd4HSk RG6oHakiU4+STGBRo8F+20F5kZ9sLd23iV/5oNlFSUZsOWjyBqgQSUn6BY4Mne98gHB6 //4HpScjI068TnzA3yU+NqWx/mq/p4q5d7XwLio149cM21qyj8alx33jn7iV461z8hP7 OlMcmgXm6L19+kEiQZBz4cUO1d5BS+nkzH8AXo9M/YHmT4/+WbtNH0fIwT+uVAq/xSr4 NChg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=jQF5dgySTjT3vTQgKDw68+Mva23RZKUkbytSXIVkaa4=; b=rXkQg/5gmwGbVCybxyWZJsjif3bDOvWW6JU3ODFbSLpoMdr19g9k0zqAGdoR0IC7Os MR7si+yGOn5GaBnDgmIeZycWn89uLow4prsnkaBwePJF/qRWmxsemhwpDNuC/w/yHtDA pbZcuYlMHnRj5v4zhDtJJT/0TPRMnXc2+GVwqvDwxGCW3Rx9jDPxQE7lKYWf2qnjRJt6 rRjvqZnGWBkjnYSBHwvjVJQGW7H8OZRgGmmx0oXnSSZI4BOpKBMfwo2CSxNqsnDPx8l4 xPXnhfiGqnPOw1kKy15NBkfCsNk1xnsbngN5d9LHAReHGUUXa75+UDw5yLULNIx8QSU2 tihw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1lPe2Emt7ZpuENdhoKwtKC6UlXVZ11NULFmuL5i6HU3vr+op5D1m4uBS27Tx9wqA==
X-Received: by 10.223.165.66 with SMTP id j2mr41639893wrb.157.1491657832336; Sat, 08 Apr 2017 06:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anmc-3678.home (ip51cc02c5.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl. [81.204.2.197]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p38sm9900504wrb.31.2017.04.08.06.23.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Apr 2017 06:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <148942077219.17007.342057944218385620@ietfa.amsl.com> <3055f4dc-900c-0a5a-aba4-4a6034b366b8@depht.com> <F7AA606E-35F0-4303-809B-4A51D990D044@vpnc.org>
From: Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com>
Message-ID: <172223db-8ce3-4410-2b0a-f5d391e34a0e@depht.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 15:23:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F7AA606E-35F0-4303-809B-4A51D990D044@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C2F1D63268C24012375A1CAE"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/czdfKFFuGcwwscy3xgPEhCSptfs>
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 13:23:56 -0000


On 4/7/17 20:39, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> (I'm surprised our philosophy-minded folks didn't answer this. I'll 
> take a stab, acknowledging that I'm only a philosophy tourist.)
>
> On 30 Mar 2017, at 13:41, Andrew McConachie wrote:
>
>> If a domain name is made up of labels, and labels are made up of 
>> octets, then can there be non-digital representations of domain names?
>
> Yes. The octets in the labels can be encoded into writing systems, and 
> there can be a commonly-recognized display format for the 
> representation of a group of labels.
>
>> For example, if I spray paint 'www.example' on the side of a bus, is 
>> it not a domain name because it is made up of paint instead of octets?
>
> It is a rendering (in paint, on a bus) a domain name in a 
> commonly-accepted display format. Neither the paint nor the bus is the 
> domain name.
>
> Some history related to representation versus essence: 
> https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/what-the-finger-pointing-to-the-moon-analogy-really-means-from-zen-buddhism-the-buddha-in-the-shurangama-sutra/
/Ceci n'est pas une pipe./

If I understand correctly this definition of domain name incorporates 
actual pipes and explicitly not paintings of pipes. Since the draft says 
a domain name is essentially octets, and only octets, any representation 
of domain names not composed of octets is just a representation, not an 
actual domain name.

I don't believe that's how the term is used in common parlance, but I 
can see how that definition works for this document. Thanks for the 
clarification!

--Andrew