IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Tue, 11 August 2015 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2FC1ACD63; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Odai3ktnTfG3; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) (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 108941ACD5D; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd56.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd56.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.160]) by mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t7BGZEGT020933 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:35:16 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com t7BGZEGT020933
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1439310917; bh=GWtdK29xJeEQzCoqg4T7LHMUs64=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=fpU835872w8WrJqn2ru+akqGv+YVlYrJRQUT2RzY/z+RP8NnUbsGTMB5UHAbkW1Ue FIyWHOpTqKjxhWGqbGtULW88fRwIWDBfHtnDM/LfGhs2AT1KCDz/gIKq631t/9Sm2Z rv310aGvW8J4CFXLVh+XkX6dSHxOD/qeZBDkmjfI=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com t7BGZEGT020933
Received: from mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.21]) by maildlpprd56.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:33:58 -0400
Received: from mxhub31.corp.emc.com (mxhub31.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.171]) by mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t7BGYfvG015857 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:34:49 -0400
Received: from MXHUB104.corp.emc.com (10.253.58.16) by mxhub31.corp.emc.com (128.222.70.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:34:44 -0400
Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.86]) by MXHUB104.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:34:45 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03
Thread-Index: AdDTyedPOEIptEXES5yrruWJh9rfVQAL8CKAAA+yevAADhK5AAAHYDlA
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:34:44 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936140655CB@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936140646FA@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <E10D2028-11D6-431C-B031-455FC769CACA@vpnc.org> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493614064DE7@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <20150811160306.GA5933@mx2.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20150811160306.GA5933@mx2.yitter.info>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.45.72]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ShkWCnSxN1cVVZArmeM7ZBY13Lg>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:35:26 -0000

> Hmm.  What if this changed to "The identifier of an individual node in
> the sequence of nodes identifier by a fully-qualified domain name"?  I
> think that would get rid of the quibble you have and still emphasise
> that it's one node in a sequence.
> 
> The point is that the label is an identifier of a node, not the node
> itself.  The discussion of this in RFC 1034 is quite long and never
> actually offers the definition as such.  So we want to note that the
> label identifies one node in the sequence of nodes.
> 
> Does that work?

Yes, that works with a minor typo fix:

	"sequence of nodes identifier" -> "sequence of nodes identified"

And we agree on the primary point of my original comment.

Thanks,
--David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 12:03 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: Paul Hoffman; dnsop@ietf.org; General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org);
> ops-dir@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-
> terminology-03
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:28:11PM +0000, Black, David wrote:
> > > > [B] 2. Names - p.4
> > > >
> > > > Label:  The identifier of an individual node in the sequence of nodes
> > > >    that comprise a fully-qualified domain name.
> 
> > In other words, I would have expected the fully-qualified domain name
> > to be a sequence of labels, each of which is an identifier that identifies
> > a node, making a fully qualified domain name a "sequence of identifiers",
> > not a "sequence of nodes".  Of course the "sequence of identifiers" in
> > an FQDN identifies a "sequence of nodes".
> 
> Hmm.  What if this changed to "The identifier of an individual node in
> the sequence of nodes identifier by a fully-qualified domain name"?  I
> think that would get rid of the quibble you have and still emphasise
> that it's one node in a sequence.
> 
> The point is that the label is an identifier of a node, not the node
> itself.  The discussion of this in RFC 1034 is quite long and never
> actually offers the definition as such.  So we want to note that the
> label identifies one node in the sequence of nodes.
> 
> Does that work?
> 
> A
> 
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email