Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 31 August 2018 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 66207130E1D; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=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 55iLdmr1Boz2; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 4491312785F; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w7VLlfF8055273 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:47:42 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.roach.at
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis@ietf.org>, "suzworldwide@gmail.com" <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, "dnsop-chairs@ietf.org" <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <153561293370.3144.18070168241164270027.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5EC914D6-EB2F-439E-9DE4-29853DE3B6F6@icann.org>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <7fc7565f-c798-9ec5-d20c-bd001bac700d@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:47:35 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5EC914D6-EB2F-439E-9DE4-29853DE3B6F6@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/exVi_rdKpq_NMYT-4P4i65VTCOo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 21:48:08 -0000

On 8/31/18 11:10 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2018, at 3:08 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>> General:
>>
>> The document seems to omit a definition for the term "class," although it is
>> used in many places an clearly has a very precise meaning in DNS parlance. It
>> would be nice to see one added, as I got a bit confused when I hit the
>> definition for "Class independent" in section 5 and realized that I'd been
>> conflating "RR type" with "Class" -- and couldn't find guidance in this document
>> to clarify the difference.
> Good catch. I'll ask my co-authors if they want to add a trivial one:
>
> Class: A class "identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol" (Quoted from <xref target="RFC1034"/>, Section 3.6)
> "The DNS tags all data with a class as well as the type, so that we can allow parallel use of different formats for data of type address."
> (Quoted from <xref target="RFC1034"/>, Section 2.2)


Thanks.


>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> §2:
>>
>>> Multicast DNS:  "Multicast DNS (mDNS) provides the ability to perform
>>>     DNS-like operations on the local link in the absence of any
>>>     conventional Unicast DNS server.
>> This definition seems to be a little oversimplified in light of the mechanisms
>> described by draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid and draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay.
> Agree, but neither of those drafts gave much explanation of how their proxying and forwarding affected RFC 6762.


It would seem worth a note that technologies exist that cause mDNS to 
work across multiple links. I'm okay if you decide to leave this out.


>
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> §5:
>>
>>> Master file:  "Master files are text files that contain RRs in text
>>>     form.  Since the contents of a zone can be expressed in the form
>>>     of a list of RRs a master file is most often used to define
>> Nit: "...list of RRs, a master..."
>>                     ^
>>
> We were pretty strict about not making editorial fixes to quotations from source RFCs.


Fair enough.


>
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> §5:
>>> Owner:  The domain name where a RR is found ([RFC1034], Section 3.6).
>> Nit: "...an RR..." (see RFC 7322 §1, CMOS 10.9)
> There too.


In that case, this definition appears to be missing quotation marks.


>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> §6:
>>
>>> Privacy-enabling DNS server:  "A DNS server that implements DNS over
>>>     TLS [RFC7858] and may optionally implement DNS over DTLS
>>>     [RFC8094]."  (Quoted from [RFC8310], Section 2)
>> This definition seems incomplete in light of the mechanism defined in
>> draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https.
> Agree, but it is what we have as a quotation.


Other definitions consist of quotations plus additional information 
(frequently in the form of another quotation). If the notion here is 
that you don't want to perform any synthesis, I'm sympathetic to that 
(although other definitions do contain substantial synthesis, so it 
doesn't seem like a hard-and-fast rule). If that's not the rationale, 
consider adding explanatory text pointing to DoH. I'm not really 
bothered either way, though. As Spencer is fond of saying: do the right 
thing.

/a