Subject: [DNSOP] term-bis and was Re: [Ext] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 21:25:08 +0000

On 3/16/17, 21:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>Please do note that we already have such a discussion (that will go for 
>IETF consensus) active in draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis. We've been 
>asking for feedback on this topic already, and even you gave us some. 
>:-)

I'm not sure if the "you" is directed at me, I did comment, so perhaps.

There's a certain catch-22 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma] in play.  Yes, the DNS needs a definition for Domain Names as the term is used across the documents on the DNS protocol and system.  But there's never been work to define Domain Names beyond the DNS protocol.  The dilemma is that for dns-terminology-bis, not having Domain Name defined would be a serious omission, but the general, "beyond the DNS" definition has never been formalized and documented.

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:58:10 -0700

On 16 Mar 2017, at 14:25, Edward Lewis wrote:

> On 3/16/17, 21:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Hoffman" 
> <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>

No, it was directed to Ralph. The text that I quoted (that you cut out 
here) was from him.

> There's a certain catch-22 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma] in 
> play.  Yes, the DNS needs a definition for Domain Names as the term is 
> used across the documents on the DNS protocol and system.  But there's 
> never been work to define Domain Names beyond the DNS protocol.  The 
> dilemma is that for dns-terminology-bis, not having Domain Name 
> defined would be a serious omission, but the general, "beyond the DNS" 
> definition has never been formalized and documented.

Can you say more why you think that is a dilemma? It seems that 
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis could certainly be the first place 
where it is formalized and documented.

--Paul Hoffman