IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Definition of QNAME (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-06.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 24 August 2017 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 52E15132351 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 r7olcKCn9GDn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 10257132962 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 44A4E2805CB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:21:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3FB0D2805FC; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:21:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FDF2805CB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:21:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3585E6023DF3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:21:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2D1BD406FD; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:21:47 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:21:47 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170824142147.lshdlmjv62nojd32@nic.fr>
References: <149894524329.526.18431408698564464455@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <149894524329.526.18431408698564464455@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.1
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-3-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.8.24.141515
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/oTh63SX_hYBh2RFJ0_mFYG3ItJY>
Subject: [DNSOP] Definition of QNAME (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-06.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, 24 Aug 2017 14:21:51 -0000

On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 02:40:43PM -0700,
 internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote 
 a message of 45 lines which said:

>         Title           : DNS Terminology
>         Authors         : Paul Hoffman
>                           Andrew Sullivan
>                           Kazunori Fujiwara
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-06.txt

One of the issues I would like to discuss for terminology-bis is the
definition of QNAME. I filed this erratum against RFC 2308 :

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2308&eid=4983

Five months later, it has not been accepted or rejected. So, it is
time to poke the WG: do you think we should mark the RFC 2308 as
wrong, and keep only the definition of RFC 1034?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email