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

Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com> Thu, 30 March 2017 20:42 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 36FA51294DA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 7oV56RfmrOCt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22a.google.com (mail-wr0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22a]) (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 8F210129480 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id w11so76427840wrc.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=depht-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mFYZY3VJoQTBbedT9GvdBh3Ez+jlSQHKGM9Swb1DZZw=; b=ZG0x6qthrBHw92/EjQ0+Bxtprc4wLGT1VehR6cynPkcOFLilceg30Bbzlrfm4Z7wHv +I/MBUa05nkAHVM+MaNQ0RTx2RhYvGCt5yVin3gcZfm5m6W2ITab0LVpMPL0hEMjtefP uOlFJ+wi6p/KYBqQyF2vS5n0bU2ALPTVu/Yl/MG7iFGRJdwv3ngEE14QSkcoaIyfsZ1S IFYxa9mvHNcsZBGX1lKVIcussfUbVHwdzbPh9W9bIf/9PfW85Yoeqs5IPTupIUniOVbJ DLYX/3GLGuFag6CxYBvYrkdTkjw4FUFZeSjVcr1EWZLA3v4NGPbf9/uFwlk/kgEeyCMf aKLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mFYZY3VJoQTBbedT9GvdBh3Ez+jlSQHKGM9Swb1DZZw=; b=r2xsLQ6yQ9FbCpmEOINuhD4hkvlO2iPdCM3O3DqKTjGDctzSCLWgl16lItvKZ/Xj8f MkHkU+6Zj5EAb2MMRBUnmKOkiVZy/VMlr2sdIRvYfkLJrzy/tbQMxJJsGNuDNpW12DUN n7ujEh/F9wTl46qUjzfaxa7+GjSCDztT9qc4N4oOjlzOBkH7Pfg3RVBfbDNgraXiSm7v ZNTQSo4qDKRu0AP7cCgnLGLpUiyXh4MYNcYL5kyRaS4qGymLy1xXvckBuFVnZcFx/4Sn WpXrz+Vac9pTfNhB6QY3C2e3rJ72s68x4ErpCgSuepJ6+SVcnViF9mmWBoVvZGn2+OsI tCrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3eZAUUBdz+3i4c6A8C3IjXv8d125jaXRKXCHOPV0/ePZMKf3lpufdlT/Ebl9pnHg==
X-Received: by 10.223.130.183 with SMTP id 52mr1441778wrc.177.1490906482746; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ANMC-3678.local (swissotel07.s.subnet.rcn.com. [216.80.61.6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 36sm4067112wrk.15.2017.03.30.13.41.21 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
References: <148942077219.17007.342057944218385620@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com>
Message-ID: <3055f4dc-900c-0a5a-aba4-4a6034b366b8@depht.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:41:20 -0500
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: <148942077219.17007.342057944218385620@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jrtw780PsyH005jJTYqtoQQ88Ng>
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 20:42:21 -0000


On 3/13/17 10:59, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : DNS Terminology
>          Authors         : Paul Hoffman
>                            Andrew Sullivan
>                            Kazunori Fujiwara
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt
> 	Pages           : 35
> 	Date            : 2017-03-13
>
> Abstract:
>     The DNS is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs.  The
>     terminology used by implementers and developers of DNS protocols, and
>     by operators of DNS systems, has sometimes changed in the decades
>     since the DNS was first defined.  This document gives current
>     definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS in a single
>     document.
>
>     This document will be the successor to RFC 7719.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05
>
>
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? 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?

I don't see anything in this document restricting the terms to 'on the 
wire' definitions. So I assume that the scope of 'domain name' includes 
non-digital instantiations. Perhaps what's needed isn't so much a new 
definition for label, but clarification on the scope of these terms and 
their definitions.

Thanks,
Andrew