Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 25 July 2019 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 5FD4A120183 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 AgbDNonabtJd for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 99CC9120196 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45vZHt3Q8TzKvx; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:25:30 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1564064730; bh=uFGvToeccbvW3hEjY/mSYeRFj+I3YG1neydsuMv9/Dw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=r9y0NYKOrLS33dm3EzCRB1upLNfDk4GH2U/1G+ubd/hC2S4MqmFQ7hMImhGf/JZkg 8wnIPK/1zKd7tT/sKH85i9Ni7doi9LvtfnYEkTHUkjZ7v2LWpJ0eiEDKzGDz8EUh4b q+wLXdxMRwraL+FBYkhZGFq+ZpI1z/do+VomqQYs=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kxcU8AHpsZ3w; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:25:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:25:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9A376394973; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:25:28 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 9A376394973
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93ECD40A6FFE; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:25:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:25:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251225140.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1907251021350.23797@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <155658243855.16316.18029354473288109146@ietfa.amsl.com> <20190724210726.GA6827@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251152480.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <624835DE-8E63-4C89-9799-136464B26E34@gmx.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251225140.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/u9QbZtqsKaAn_0N5CgFHdefAuho>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 25 Jul 2019 14:25:35 -0000

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Tony Finch wrote:

>> what do you use then for  "traditional DNS over UDP/TCP” aka Do53
>
> I like Do53.

I dislike Do53, because then we should really have Do53-over-TCP as DoT
and Do53-over-https as DoH. If we call it "DNS-over-TCP" than really
what we are doing is running (classic) DNS over TCP, and we shouldn't
midway the discussion rename "DNS" to "Do53".

Paul