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

I dislike the rate of change in terminology, and what feels like
intrusion of somebodys favourite term, which is not actually
reflective of widespread use in DNS discussion.

I have never said DO53 and I don't know anyone who has. Every other
term of art, has sound basis. This feels like a bad backronym and we
are now moving from a terminology to an emerging AI aware ontology of
phoneme-building.

Can we stick to acronyms which really exist? Is this in a document of
substance and I missed something? (very possible)

A dictionary model I like (btw) is to show the earliest published use
of the form, to set its context and definitions as they emerge.

-G

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:37 AM Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
>
> Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
> >
> > 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".
>
> These abbreviations are about identifying the transport that is being used
> for the DNS messages. One problem with Do53 is that it isn't specific
> about the transport, because it covers both UDP and TCP. But it's a handy
> abbreviation for DNS over traditional transports. It doesn't identify DNS
> as a whole, just the framing of DNS messages in UDP and TCP.
>
> Tony.
> --
> f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
> a just distribution of the rewards of success
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop