Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 07:57:24 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.

        Title           : Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement
        Authors         : Ted Lemon
                          Ralph Droms
                          Warren Kumari
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04.txt
	Pages           : 27
	Date            : 2017-05-15

Abstract:
   The Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC 6761
   has been shown through experience to present unanticipated
   challenges.  This memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive,
   of the problems that have been identified.  In addition it reviews
   the history of Domain Names and summarizes current IETF publications
   and some publications from other organizations relating to Special-
   Use Domain Names.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Andrew McConachie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:31:51 -0400

>     and some publications from other organizations relating to Special-
The use of the term 'meaning' in this document is problematic. Meaning 
is something that humans do, not machines. What I believe we're actually 
interested in is scoping and binding. How a name is scoped and what 
object it gets bound to, not what it means.

For example the text:
"Domain Names with unambiguous global meaning are preferable to
  Domain Names with local meaning which will be ambiguous.
  Nevertheless both globally-meaningful and locally-special names
  are in use and must be supported."

Should probably be changed to:
"Domain Names with unambiguous global bindings are preferable to
  Domain Names with local bindings which will be ambiguous.
  Nevertheless both globally-scoped and locally-scoped names
  are in use and must be supported."

This is more akin to how programming language designers discuss this 
subject.[1] I don't want to delve into the usage of 'meaning' in RFC 
2826 itself, but there are a couple other uses of 'meaning' in this I-D 
that I believe should be removed, and I am happy to send text if people 
agree.

I'm also worried that some readers of this document might interpret its 
use of 'global' or 'local' in a geographic sense, and not a scoping 
sense. But I don't know how to deal with this. Perhaps it's just a risk.

Thank you for all your hard work on this,
Andrew

[1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0227/

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 14:59:23 -0400

I think that "meaning" is more likely to be understood than "binding," although I think your technical point is valid.   Same with global/local.   I'll see if I can add some clarifying text.   Thanks for the review!

> On May 16, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Andrew McConachie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of the term 'meaning' in this document is problematic. Meaning is something that humans do, not machines. What I believe we're actually interested in is scoping and binding. How a name is scoped and what object it gets bound to, not what it means.
> 
> For example the text:
> This is more akin to how programming language designers discuss this subject.[1] I don't want to delve into the usage of 'meaning' in RFC 2826 itself, but there are a couple other uses of 'meaning' in this I-D that I believe should be removed, and I am happy to send text if people agree.
> 
> I'm also worried that some readers of this document might interpret its use of 'global' or 'local' in a geographic sense, and not a scoping sense. But I don't know how to deal with this. Perhaps it's just a risk.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 17:42:13 -0400

Would the following change address your concerns?

Section 4.1.1., paragraph 3:
OLD:

    o  The Internet requires a globally unique namespace

NEW:

    o  The Internet requires a globally unique namespace: a namespace in
       which any given name refers to the same information (has the same
       meaning) no matter who requests that information and no matter
       from which specific name server they request it.

Section 4.1.1., paragraph 4:
OLD:

    o  Private networks may operate private namespaces, but still require
       that names in the public namespace be globally unique.

NEW:

    o  Private networks may operate private namespaces, with names that
       have meanings only locally (within the private network) but still
       require that names in the public namespace be globally unique.

This is to the paragraphs preceding the one you commented on, but I think it does a good job of introducing the concepts used in the paragraphs you commented on, in a fairly natural way.

---

From: Andrew McConachie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 13:47:30 -0400

> This is to the paragraphs preceding the one you commented on, but I think it does a good job of introducing the concepts used in the paragraphs you commented on, in a fairly natural way.
Yes. I think it makes clear to the reader what is _meant_ by 'meaning' 
throughout the document.

Thanks,
Andrew