Re: [DNSOP] definitions of "public DNS Service"

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Mon, 25 May 2020 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.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 596AB3A07C5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 02:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.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 fHVacR97QLfG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 02:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 DE2D63A07BD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 02:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx3.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B52F26A2FF; Mon, 25 May 2020 11:06:17 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1590397577; bh=CPLTswYqVZrl0XM0RYyGb3eCBykg4hmWQMp5ig7Dhcc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=xi5iD7bFioxmq+vfVk8CPBZGUGojZDT/vLyyKfPlg++0ZnpZDmWe9tQgEos9qw8ah LVbHTn6c8/tZ2qY512zDHO0zodahpHdyVck/0gCyIMTwEBQIuzohWHA7B68YNvv+ZE 6zIQeCae4AoMkzytVDLpCy3Lm7FuKD/OxYC8qSGdftL9dbok2r8r9Hta27ZYzhyEmi KjjvhfHmlf3WVsLIKrBruE3VfjaHBPihqWcyyUvzwnEKnA7KawKcSUft57fTsyA4Od FhHbMkwHv7N7A0Vva9ACrQZoImRMinZA14QfW3Kg12ZbCdFGllRgg6Qa6QCVA18+Na KhApSBkwJZnxA==
Received: from appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A5D9B3C07D4; Mon, 25 May 2020 11:06:17 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 11:06:17 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: George Kuo <george@apnic.net>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <189033692.11260.1590397577578@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2005221744110.25154@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CAKr6gn0Fqk0qNCs5wbptN+rWRBQgBKom4iiudW0V1Xrj3fmE7Q@mail.gmail.com> <2487238.otjEU5M4pH@linux-9daj> <LO2P265MB0573E5674E005493793C6294C2B40@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2005221744110.25154@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev8
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ekf63u8iZuHGAG1ssgy2yeguFCA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] definitions of "public DNS Service"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 25 May 2020 09:06:21 -0000


> Il 22/05/2020 18:59 Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> ha scritto:
>  
> I think despite what Paul H. said this is already covered in RFC 8499:
> 
>    Open resolver:  A full-service resolver that accepts and processes
>       queries from any (or nearly any) client.  This is sometimes also
>       called a "public resolver", although the term "public resolver" is
>       used more with open resolvers that are meant to be open, as
>       compared to the vast majority of open resolvers that are probably
>       misconfigured to be open.  Open resolvers are discussed in
>       [RFC5358].

I think this definition is good - perhaps what we need is just to agree to use "open resolver" instead of "public resolver".

If you wanted to convey the nuance that it's not just open, but open on purpose and meant to attract users from the entire Internet, you could add "global": "open global resolver".

Or, as an alternative, you could use the term "platform", which is increasingly being used to identify Internet-wide global companies that provide multiple consumer services. "Platform resolver" would also convey the idea that these resolvers are going to be distributed and ubiquitously available. "Cloud resolver" could have a similar meaning.

But, as for any terminological bikeshedding effort, you cannot force others to use the "most correct" term, so it's possibly just a waste of time.

-- 
 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy