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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 04 September 2018 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.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 8545E130E4C; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 21:44:12 -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, 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 4y9uNs2t1sPA; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 21:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (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 DB780130DDA; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 21:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 676163AB060; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 04:44:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 302AB160053; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 04:44:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1499016005C; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 04:44:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Fy_Isj0hedry; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 04:44:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.67] (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E125D160053; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 04:44:07 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANeU+ZDMLxpS1VLCunM6DRmkLqtt521Q+QSHwdhvMZ-+eGqSMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 14:44:04 +1000
Cc: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <87D6B1F2-CA9B-4D8A-A05B-F353C712EF2F@isc.org>
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>
To: "StJohns, Michael" <msj@nthpermutation.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/qslZslGkK13cioNGt9g88-1Ev_M>
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 04:44:13 -0000

Actually it is.  A master file is a zone transfer mechanism.

Mark

> On 4 Sep 2018, at 2:29 pm, StJohns, Michael <msj@nthpermutation.com>; wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org