Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

p vix <paul@redbarn.org> Tue, 04 September 2018 06:39 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 72731130DFA; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 23:39:43 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 NwChdyRGclNU; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 23:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89FED130DC5; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 23:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.26.192.202] (unknown [1.1.125.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 532B6892C6; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 06:39:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 15:37:22 +0900 (GMT+09:00)
From: p vix <paul@redbarn.org>
To: "StJohns, Michael" <msj@nthpermutation.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <80bca43.6d0d9eb7.165a34cc5dc@redbarn.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANeU+ZDMLxpS1VLCunM6DRmkLqtt521Q+QSHwdhvMZ-+eGqSMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4AA8656A-7D2F-4584-B84D-47E97483CCC2@gmail.com> <5B8D548E.5080205@redbarn.org> <30BF3D0E-1EE9-4310-ACCB-413E019B6D93@isc.org> <CANeU+ZDMLxpS1VLCunM6DRmkLqtt521Q+QSHwdhvMZ-+eGqSMA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: R2Mail2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nuutwue6Tv4X1tCBflMUnhVzhe0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 06:39:44 -0000

Other parts of the doc say that some rr types are class specific and others are universal. There an implication that class affects rdata format within a universal rr type. It's incoherent as hell. The reason we don't use it is it's poor definition. Incompatible implmentations could all be right according to the doc. Thus my proposed wording. Is anyone arguing that the spec is coherent on this topic? If not let's move on.

----- Original Message -----
From: "StJohns, Michael" <msj@nthpermutation.com>;
Sent: 9/4/18 - 1:29 PM
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>;
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

> Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master  file (not zone) should contain a
> single class and single SOA record.  That’s not the same thing as limiting
> a zone to a single class AFAICT.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 18:49 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>; wrote:
> 
>> RFC 1035 Section 5.2 limits a zone to be single class.
>>
>> > On 4 Sep 2018, at 1:34 am, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>; wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that
>> >> draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined
>> >> it. This seemed to the authors and chairs like a reasonable thing to
>> >> fix. It’s also important enough that we want WG review, but not
>> >> extensive enough to require a new LC.
>> >>
>> >> Here's the definition that the authors would like to add to the
>> document:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>    Class:
>> >>    A class "identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol"
>> >>    (Quoted from [RFC1034], Section 3.6). "The DNS tags all data with a
>> >>    class as well as the type, so that we can allow parallel use of
>> >>    different formats for data of type address." (Quoted from [RFC1034],
>> >>    Section 2.2). In practice, the class for nearly every query is "IN"..
>> >>    There are some queries for "CH", but they are usually for the
>> >>    purposes of information about the server itself rather than for a
>> >>    different type of address.
>> >>
>> >> Please let us know your opinions yea or nay by Monday, Sept. 10,
>> >> midnight UTC.
>> >
>> > i don't think this def'n serves the need. we need to speak more truth:
>> >
>> > "The Class tag was weakly defined, such that either a zone can have data
>> in multiple classes, or each class can have its own zone cut hierarchy, and
>> so neither interpretation can be relied upon by DNS protocol implementers.."
>> >
>> > then go on to "in practice..."
>> >
>> > --
>> > P Vixie
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > DNSOP mailing list
>> > DNSOP@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>> --
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop