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

Suzanne Woolf <> Fri, 14 September 2018 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48EEB130DCA; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZUlOvkhn-bvF; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15352128D0C; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y20-v6so5363008ybi.13; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=LYdDP7duGAa2MwszthXh5UsHrcwDW/4a69KyWf6THKQ=; b=uGghl8bU6b+rbKoK282D+19cJeo88f8XVxLuJQFNMBVvLW1LlUczV3yuGMlQ4p9xM0 QtqTVCWPH1HCIknDnZtGiPZdCuC5hKHVNmdh46a/ANReiBqJU3n9kPnz1/KP34PUHOH5 PLSeIaLOy3rEAfshkKdNWEjooOu4UKRn/XtVnGKnJ01GECeLl9g/6iIuYy3aGNu9pJt8 RTKgcDkrux3SDYXHtaNqiHotiA+GQ0+O5yT3TDBgiRe6BTSy74/0UVi+1YTb+3Sb2Aff 0IubHRty0+xYWUglyicnqTTjXMqySPKRJswKULKe6g034f9m+wcKAWh/SLq6SNiQAyuV wKhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=LYdDP7duGAa2MwszthXh5UsHrcwDW/4a69KyWf6THKQ=; b=klSHOquzJrrb+Hs0umfUgMVkCfghuWbizvcipfl4TRueEZ5J7XVKNllyV8SMftFzcf IH7fIIDyYaWkQOvjsM/Thm47o7ZZaCDbiSXf5q9i8IbK+CYEjYAo89mPuyD5re86hlUn 8E10Jt/WdVw2x7FuPTrrI7lvvwowAgu9xKa+n+Y+K7eXz1YwluNO+69fOs02MG9Ji8YE SG+24ZNrGpEpOM2Kut8OeTHbeeveqVsoVQsxRhNgBVae6WS59N6poHTXPx+WbURqEvXn SLwRF54vfJeWXjl1Lavr1HKK+gTEwh57Rj1cu9pyJLt9h4qpTKVTbdMUV7884WbehiP3 8B4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51B4e2Q//wBib0oe1vV3Fi0RlruWCrvmWo+6HT1j8Jup1C1OHwXX Kv3/0vh7x82FU1YH42+NuTpjDGHR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYvve2TmQ2J/iYVIXnWimiXevew3ZiEALhVwFK0cygYoWTAEKIuDNjVcvFdz1b3Sf7ppaMrcg==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:a203:: with SMTP id b3-v6mr6345803ybi.186.1536959320150; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c381:29fe:a0bf:7157:443d:c096? ([2601:181:c381:29fe:a0bf:7157:443d:c096]) by with ESMTPSA id g205-v6sm6070870ywb.23.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Suzanne Woolf <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_19621ED3-36F9-4F4A-BF36-5516E576B918"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:08:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:08:43 -0000


Thanks for the lively discussion on this point….after reviewing the thread, the editors, the chairs, and the AD (Warren) felt that there was consensus support for the new language proposed by the editors defining “class," but controversy about the additional language proposed by Paul.

Rather than re-open the document in the WG and pursue a new WGLC and IETF LC, we decided to forward the document on with the brief change proposed by the editors.

Personally, I figure the controversy over the use and meaning of “class” in the DNS won’t go away, and I wouldn’t oppose someone reviving Andrew’s draft or writing another one.


> On Sep 3, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@GMAIL.COM> 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.
> Thanks,
> Suzanne
> (For the chairs)