IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] term-bis and was Re: [Ext] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 16 March 2017 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 A397A129A9B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:58:15 -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] 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 d-AF-MdnPlXQ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C862129AC2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.31] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v2GLw3g5045632 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:58:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [10.32.60.31]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:58:10 -0700
Message-ID: <E4D59118-C03B-4A54-8A5D-C67BE2B9A5D2@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <A73BEDF2-0B57-4841-844B-039FD11E4E2F@icann.org>
References: <A73BEDF2-0B57-4841-844B-039FD11E4E2F@icann.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mD5rhvEXVSlgA8CEUW3ucpTPBpo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] term-bis and was Re: [Ext] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
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, 16 Mar 2017 21:58:15 -0000

On 16 Mar 2017, at 14:25, Edward Lewis wrote:

> On 3/16/17, 21:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Hoffman" 
> <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>
>> Please do note that we already have such a discussion (that will go 
>> for
>> IETF consensus) active in draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis. We've 
>> been
>> asking for feedback on this topic already, and even you gave us some.
>> :-)
>
> I'm not sure if the "you" is directed at me, I did comment, so 
> perhaps.

No, it was directed to Ralph. The text that I quoted (that you cut out 
here) was from him.

> There's a certain catch-22 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma] in 
> play.  Yes, the DNS needs a definition for Domain Names as the term is 
> used across the documents on the DNS protocol and system.  But there's 
> never been work to define Domain Names beyond the DNS protocol.  The 
> dilemma is that for dns-terminology-bis, not having Domain Name 
> defined would be a serious omission, but the general, "beyond the DNS" 
> definition has never been formalized and documented.

Can you say more why you think that is a dilemma? It seems that 
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis could certainly be the first place 
where it is formalized and documented.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email