Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

Dick Franks <> Thu, 12 July 2018 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DD0130EE8 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uRon773TJgrk for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBA08130DC0 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s11-v6so21082856wra.13 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=AKfR4jX29/lPc8hJfxh+4WIR5Jzjr8pZb/P0HlhpDwc=; b=RQ/7/Nzq4v9Ld6jtV/NN7T39tya0zunEwhGD4eFVus+1T8yBSUvnxAGHT9OuT6Y0GC gKOSEpBR8G3/3ndkRs0Mwd1//GSewCC3kPozPGJdr/UbVpSFbjAKj/VK+u26nqoIrvzI lH9dv+g5811bVBle/W6DPSXDcvLDZhV1nP3lJNpnrbKIboptZ1YkfwjajsdFBvrO54zb GrPVxoO33XidhBp2QLUwYSHURsnLjyYX2FbdRbJwJy37E/i2YSF9/TPvogcrCWSLvXTu sHpo5q5vdllazYYMlvHcnAvExeuqDUgp4qWHvMPOxVbVU+Hv1eGxrcvhs27FL2SacUWe 3rgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AKfR4jX29/lPc8hJfxh+4WIR5Jzjr8pZb/P0HlhpDwc=; b=Ia3+Kue6n7qwMG9EM0tRg9TN+kqkvdgqRPvHsnoRNU5kMzV26QZACZsbPevFapIOeX 6HFf3V0XaVueVf1R4L+fj8cb7mf8skENueZXF+DcRPigshHqIzrgSidtIWvJw5nQANlS 0xfDGG6s3aTgjGvFaG0GIFm6cDpGIISjKDOFjxNUUghGe4X68UC46o0oPqQE2KM1mFuj w4iWjtnF/7nni6HTNEEwyOHCYw5cGHU24A9762EDti5FTETVNk91mpEqQSu7run8MQxQ MUcrLr0CK9puTCDGM8FBpbqVdb4ufm4mkPm6BzO/r0c1zOAHV3+OFxUp75hbL1rWqF8M 4jdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHzewpNMb0fN4sh9GCJfuaGfKfRgb3xDxGixnNBLf+XUWO53HHR q0s2HQmQX+O3r82LOtamwTMfYC0vG8z93SOBltI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcfovhR1gfCU2EgKe2wcfSOXWqQPFj6685sYbR/p6vK91rsJ8dTeOXtTWdpLigSBcuhNed3EKFFgWceBASQG/s=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9183:: with SMTP id 3-v6mr1242806wri.122.1531390221209; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:adf:c7c4:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Dick Franks <>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:09:40 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Wfewmbf_ZoRcM0VLt7EDCsNiE0U
Message-ID: <>
To: Dave Crocker <>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>, Benno Overeinder <>, DNSOP WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025d46c0570ca92d3"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
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: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:10:25 -0000

On 12 July 2018 at 02:58, Dave Crocker <> wrote:

> On 7/6/2018 8:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Editorial: I would prefer all occurrences of "right-most" to be
>> replaced by "most general", to emphasize that it is not the position
>> which matters, it is the closeness to the root.
>> Editorial: 'that is they are the "top" of a DNS branch, under a
>> "parent" domain name.' I assume that "top" is used instead of "apex"
>> because the sentence does not always refer to the top of a zone?
> So, this turned into a niggling 'thing' for me and produced a collection
> of small changes.
> The basic model now is to introduce the issue early in the document and
> dispatch it once, and then use a single term for the rest of the document,
> without all the distractingly redundant clarifications.
> So there's now text in attrleaf that explains about hierarchy, top,
> highest, and the original presentation convention of right, but noting that
> other presentations are possible.

IMO unnecessary.
This will inevitably either overlap or conflict with the draft RFC7719-bis
DNS terminology document.
Better to use already battle-hardened terminology throughout and add
RFC7719-bis citation.

> It then declares the term 'global' as referring to the node name of
> interest and only uses that term in the rest of the document.

"global" does not tick the right box for me.
Perhaps the underscore-prefixed label (sequence? / tree?) needs to be
described as subordinate to (or rooted at?) a "principal name".

  (Well, there are a couple of places where 'highest' was needed as
> clarification.)

Stephane: "more/most general"
otherwise: "closer/closest to the root"

> The -fix document doesn't stand alone, so it merely continues the
> convention and does not re-explain it.