Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> Thu, 16 July 2015 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19931B2C89 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:22:02 -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] autolearn=ham
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 5OFAJOwQjnmw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3220B1B2C92 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31C710012; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:22:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b-Oagpti37cS; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:21:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.154.188.19] (199-7-157-8.eng.wind.ca [199.7.157.8]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FB02105DB; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:21:59 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70)
In-Reply-To: <55A62F49.6090608@sinodun.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 21:21:54 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2467C74A-2FFC-42AE-AB4F-0FD942D73D13@crankycanuck.ca>
References: <CAEKtLiQWPM6yJZZASQ5k1bzsbHc3jv5FRsJ6ifgUdj9TRLCmRg@mail.gmail.com> <83A64168-3510-4E0B-AA23-54547C05990B@vpnc.org> <CAEKtLiSb1at+8oipBmK3K69k4jcvBuVKHQ-=sTjvuy-YGFqsLg@mail.gmail.com> <55A62F49.6090608@sinodun.com>
To: "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/w9tHNlV11D4tRoLcdNi7lr3K17E>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 16 Jul 2015 01:22:02 -0000

Sorry for the top-post. As I understand things, this is more than a "choice". RFC 2181 requires it, I think, no?

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 06:00, John Dickinson <jad@sinodun.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 14/07/2015 17:26, Casey Deccio wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
>> <mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>    On 13 Jul 2015, at 14:20, Casey Deccio wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>        4. In the definition of RRset, the bit about TTLs needing to be
>>        the same
>>        seems out of place for this terminology document.  That is an
>>        operational
>>        requirement.
>> 
>> 
>>    Disagree. To some people, TTLs are operational, to others they are
>>    part of the master file format. For the latter, this sameness
>>    applies to the definition.
> 
> No, the zone file can contain different TTLs. As far as I know most implementations choose to reduce the TTLs for all RRs in an RRSet to the lowest value.
> 
>> 
>> What I am saying is that whether the TTLs are the same (correct) or the
>> TTLs are different (incorrect), it doesn't change the definition of
>> RRset, which is the set of RRs with the same name/class/type.  Therefore
>> the requirement that the TTL be the same is not a useful statement for
>> the definitions doc, whether it's operational or standards-based.
> 
> I agree.
> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop