From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <paf@frobbit.se>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, dnsop@ietf.org,
 dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org,
 draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:11:51 +0200
Message-ID: <127DA514-53CC-4189-9B27-D2EA8554FEA9@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <6314E3B19DA5C00A92191A38@PSB>
References: <153298445658.8167.4045103372772856058.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <7C7531F385095225A8D60CE1@PSB>
 <0756F0C0-6BB9-4917-ACB1-52920AB1126D@icann.org>
 <6314E3B19DA5C00A92191A38@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary="=_MailMate_17F875B8-A39E-4979-95C0-14268DAA4292_=";
 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jsoMfcZgjXJ5Y27jvcQPeDabSsE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Last Call:
 <draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11.txt> (DNS Terminology) to Best Current
 Practice
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 3156 and 4880).

--=_MailMate_17F875B8-A39E-4979-95C0-14268DAA4292_=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 15 Aug 2018, at 22:01, John C Klensin wrote:

> In that regard, I find the document's definition of "split DNS"
> a little bit frustrating, as I have seen (multiple times) a
> distinction made between names (or a zone) that would clearly be part o=
f the public DNS except that they are hidden from view and names that are=
 part of a different hierarchical structure based on a different root.   =
That is a different case from names (even fully-qualified ones) that diff=
erent user can resolve but for which they will get different results.  It=
 may also be different from practices in CDNs to return different answers=
 depending on the presumed network location from which the question is be=
ing asked, practices that presumably fall into your "view" category.
> I can't make a case for holding up the document to try to sort that out=
 better, but it perhaps should be flagged as an
> opportunity for future work.

Is it the case that various alternatives should be enumerated?

a. When a domain name is used for access to a service we might have:

a.1. The same DNS response regardless of who sends the query (this is the=
 default for DNS)

a.2. Different responses depending on context (where query is sent from e=
tc), but still same service (this is CDN)

b. When different services are accessed depending on context (enterprise =
setup)

b.1. A service is available or not depending on context, implemented via =
DNS response or not (version of a.1)

b.2. Different services are available depending on context, implemented v=
ia different DNS responses

c. The special case of (b) based on use of different root zone

:
:
:

   Patrik

--=_MailMate_17F875B8-A39E-4979-95C0-14268DAA4292_=
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iG0EARECAC0WIQRUH/cJI8i4DDUU3qWsxpsaC4jXzQUCW3UVpw8ccGFmQGZyb2Ji
aXQuc2UACgkQrMabGguI180LXwCfR+DOv0gYJqU6z5Zok0uZUqG63iUAn1AH7Pb7
5x6O64Zi/i+FZVru+EZt
=mLIr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_MailMate_17F875B8-A39E-4979-95C0-14268DAA4292_=--