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

George Michaelson <> Thu, 25 July 2019 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3C212016D for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 4LC3tMlWcRv5 for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96CE21200EC for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e20so67343482iob.9 for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g714VE3JETXyhEnheffND7nCKYn2H9GsEFflCB0Li9g=; b=Cvl5/1PaGJbag0u5b8bDiDvj5rTHLZ59dKOVjWdi4IjPSAlY6+kU5c5DQSYAWAPzR/ jKEoaNxHCc0EI5qRZ2UPYahoYpGeCkrt5/lyKJ7rO/LY5Xlv28nZylLtnXqwaTWDfgs3 fQisMtIGyE8i4ggpAiTvVYew77ApSCMeQf0dfF/+OpGJL7MsfD5DwyqsW3u5TW/TqYt8 q16xT60gM9ptv8MCFbVrvvwg405E9mXNCiieGJ5h4gazsLZWiBUn43zLkp5MTvaz0Ul4 SxXyxVvwuNot1I/TT5QBQt3kjJZVZNf3ZFOC1mUKvdv4X7rb7k8RrwY4qI2S2yGDEnYI ES7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g714VE3JETXyhEnheffND7nCKYn2H9GsEFflCB0Li9g=; b=U/yAx54YGtD+VUOo/KIcbTCcViBi0anEUbs67hjs8tBqk4WOq6gPZ/jJWifNN9E2XH DwzwCnhx/B50Ps3iAomKbui5lJR0lsZDaoW70vZJnWX5f6/LjTxsvzOQPfuWB514IVkG 3y5sjgRbDH+4G3C/X5WnxNcUQhmQ9YzamwaGynmC43SMVhVG7KBP5x67Nt6BbdUSdL20 wfn6bpVIhTy3D5P/otXkr6hIseaMEJXT1cAfsFtT/6lKz/NWAddCVy7GSHvydcRDY8+u mT3ot83M6LFq4d01GBi+5SJ1CCpbnR+GipE5PK4UDuBE5uuXg7cwfCn/kHkHkurGr6jO 8huA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX4hOBKuPYDUyh8jWZfr0zpyN6rDuYMCt08Xi40JLH7XBsc4037 SLCa0jZxNkPqiM/vvHclRLsFowxQg1C5e5xJF7m1/zQwofU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCCxJC8DQPhx1GD/QaxbOx9ybM/f9s6XdTH3FbmUcpTuj+4rsg7k7qo4PZvbxE7CAAYfLCB6xIGmMH+ixXsAo=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:a417:: with SMTP id c23mr20172895jal.141.1564065590370; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:39:39 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Tony Finch <>
Cc: Paul Wouters <>, dnsop <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt
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: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:40:01 -0000

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

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.


On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:37 AM Tony Finch <>; wrote:
> Paul Wouters <>; 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  <>;
> a just distribution of the rewards of success
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list