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

Eric Rescorla <> Fri, 31 August 2018 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04BEC130E58 for <>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zB2kJsi7nJgt for <>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 343E5130E51 for <>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f8-v6so10635288ljk.1 for <>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FAlYmzSPkjDS5XVxt+0CweShE1tHRP+DepvBnYotLTw=; b=KXF0eEUQGt+Tgm78Xfhtdlwr/Byo7Ta7mkoxOY5d/DO+rXYCFTMkDAq9Po0RNComK6 /xlZAHiLsNEvcg0zpGmjOiKK8sOIDfXj5I7mixsM0nkSizt1KTiwqG2Y8vDmDqkLe5eD W3iSYVmuB0b2CccB1kDeQ6rUBD6WNRvQzjj5Y/BfGWzM6D9tNesTppxAsUurVZdQMTNs 5EHwIezu1rmpl7otph5p0GzHH9JnvZJ91O1c3qsKfpR4rAwHnUYix5be8SLy/uuJZRqN LX2IMnSM51ZEGeZzzDUxJfqZQcYVVJsvGHD8nh0/WylevoMWoYHNFOXr/BetGw3YmDAI 2NPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FAlYmzSPkjDS5XVxt+0CweShE1tHRP+DepvBnYotLTw=; b=pZ3bNdlFkWHNYkRj23IGMS+hU03ZZkx1MZ/yjsWbgHa5WcHyGs+4DQmhuodUlELGm3 4SjY6bU7oSZ1bjepGHYvKyBpNaVLVIUtcK41GqCeJcDCyWeDE/4PZqiUJFgzBmFCEwAq 6/ogP9O6tmb6K6zPphSITZP4IzTUJ3aao8s3RvS/KWKScISRF+IFA3APUgivo4H0/TSm 4g80fIg9bPm8k8l4sufgelFDjVjvIOzpNL+P4FR067jjf2f5Y5XvTMhwOYQJOTbNPHnt Nnou41Dxm5+TdXuycHPZsvUmUiTVwHxPqRyabYiMoxz6LQXFhv2at1TfnQyrqmjzLdlA br7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BxL3zA3Pi1FbJJHlmTV2t0lxCOQmxfAQYbi5Fk5lJOSUmf6G+x tvsLvrT6iyBItrM92GEQnslk0gK9EN4D2XkViGbzxw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdaqNv0aT4aP0XME4uVdrjqF7MFP1lf5pyGkbDVuUEwUNuQE8FNNAhYDgoFdnL1nzuDG+byrKaiyeIh7BD+jcX0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3e0d:: with SMTP id l13-v6mr8527447lja.151.1535734663514; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ab3:4091:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:57:02 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Cc: The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000016a0000574be177c"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:57:48 -0000

That's understandable. I think it would be most helpful to somehow tag
those cases so that the reader can see that they are ambiguous rather than
just rereading and being confused.


On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Paul Hoffman <>

> Ekr pinged me in Jabber after I sent this, and I wanted to clarify
> something bigger-picture on this document. We know that there are a number
> of definitions that are not clear. In the WG discussion, we tried hard to
> get them clarified, and often met resistance in the form of "I have always
> thought it meant X" vs. "I have always thought it meant Y" that could not
> be resolved. On some of the terms that Ekr asked for clarity on, we had
> even done separate threads. In the end, there was reasonably strong WG
> consensus that the document was the best we could do, even thought most of
> the folks who said that probably had at least one bit that they didn't like
> in the document.
> --Paul Hoffman