IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 18 December 2017 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 685ED129C5D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 05:24:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 TnntqvgLQhNz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 05:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 6CE3A1205F1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 05:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 01166282531; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:24:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id EF27228254A; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:24:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8741282531; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:24:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B116427BE0; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:24:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DE839401D4; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:24:46 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:24:46 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20171218132446.w7o5x4mrz2ttprlb@nic.fr>
References: <707A270D-94DA-4651-84DC-409FAA6793F7@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <707A270D-94DA-4651-84DC-409FAA6793F7@vpnc.org>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.2
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-3-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.12.18.131216
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/e2r4E_WK58W0TdLFt5CD2cvJ6Qg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain
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: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:24:49 -0000

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:27:32AM -0800,
 Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote 
 a message of 28 lines which said:

> - In-bailiwick
> - Out-of-bailiwick

The current definition is restrictive: it mentions only name servers.

IMHO, "in-bailiwick" could be said for any domain name, even if it has
less practical consequences than for name servers. For instance,
www.toto.fr is in-bailiwick for .fr.

> In-bailiwick name servers may have glue records in their parent zone

Wrong use of "parent" here, since the definition of "parent" says "The
domain in which the Child is registered". Should be "ancestor", as in
"d.nic.fr's parent zone is fr but it requires glue in the root, which
is an ancestor"

> - In-domain
> - Sibling domain

I tend to think it would be better to drop these two terms. I find
them rarely used and they don't seem to bring much value.

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status