Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:22:50 +0200

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:27:17PM +0200,
 Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 27 lines which said:

> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

I've read -10 and it seems OK. It solves a real issue, and does it
properly.

Editorial: I would prefer all occurrences of "right-most" to be
replaced by "most general", to emphasize that it is not the position
which matters, it is the closeness to the root.

Editorial: 'that is they are the "top" of a DNS branch, under a
"parent" domain name.' I assume that "top" is used instead of "apex"
because the sentence does not always refer to the top of a zone?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:39:14 -0700

Stephane, thanks for the comments.

Inline...

> which matters, it is the closeness to the root.

So let's start by making sure we're seeking the same goal:  reader 
comprehension.  While I can imagine there is phrasing that is better 
than right-most, to achieve that comprehension, I believe 'most general' 
isn't it.  My impression has been that 'right-most' is the most common 
phrasing people have used over the years.

> because the sentence does not always refer to the top of a zone?

'zone' is almost certainly not the term to apply here.  While it 
encompasses a sub-tree, its boundary is not explicit in a domain name.

The DNS is a hierarchy.  I would have though 'top of a sub-branch' was 
therefore clear, concise and accurate.  Again, if there is other 
phrasing that is more established, we should use it.  But I'm not used 
to seeing 'apex', though it's certainly a more erudite choice...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Jul 2018 12:35:30 -0400

>phrasing people have used over the years.

I'm with Dave here.  The current language seems easy to understand,
right-most and top.

R's,
John

Translator's note: change this to "left most" when translated
to Arabic or Hebrew.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:53:58 -0700

> to seeing 'apex', though it's certainly a more erudite choice...

I went back and looked at the terminology draft that is in last call. I 
assume that is where 'apex' came from.

However I'll claim that none of the language in that section of the 
document actually covers what is being described here, because this 
isn't about 'zones'...

FWIW, my sense is that the term zone has actually become quite ambiguous...

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:57:46 -0700

> Translator's note: change this to "left most" when translated

in rtl contexts, domain names are shown with the root at the left???

d/

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Jul 2018 13:26:57 -0400

> in rtl contexts, domain names are shown with the root at the left???

If they're IDNs in rtl languages, apparently so.  If they're a mix, or all 
ltr, it's anyone's guess.  When writing up advice on implementing EAI 
addresses I talked to people who use the Internet in Arabic and the 
message I got was that it's rather confused.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 02:55:59 -0400

(no hats)

I've read the -10 version and I'm very happy how Dave has split the
documents up.

I have not finished going through the attrleaf-fix.

I do like Ondrej's comment about bundling the two documents.  They do work
well together.

thanks Dave.
Tim

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:26 PM, John R Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> addresses I talked to people who use the Internet in Arabic and the message
> I got was that it's rather confused.
>
> Regards,
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: Jan Včelák <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 11:39:38 -0400

> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/

I've read the document and I agree all comments were addressed. Thumbs up.

Jan

---

From: Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:03:34 +0200

Hi all,

Procedure/process update.

As announced, the WG LC should/would be closed today, but draft
reviewers suggested to run attrleaf and attrleaf-fix together through
the process.  The WG LC will be closed this Wednesday, July 11th for
both attrleaf and attrleaf-fix.

-- Benno

On 07/07/2018 08:55, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> I do like Ondrej's comment about bundling the two documents.  They do
> work well together.
> 
> thanks Dave. 
> Tim
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:26 PM, John R Levine <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     If they're IDNs in rtl languages, apparently so.  If they're a mix,
>     or all ltr, it's anyone's guess.  When writing up advice on
>     implementing EAI addresses I talked to people who use the Internet
>     in Arabic and the message I got was that it's rather confused.
> 
>     Regards,
>     John Levine, [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>, Taughannock
>     Networks, Trumansburg NY
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:48:19 -0700

> which matters, it is the closeness to the root.

G'day.

Given the reality of arguably-legitimate left-to-right domain name 
hierarchy presentation in some contexts, and given a desire to have 
specification text that is both correct and robust, I'm going to suggest 
a bit more verbosity in the attrleaf document, along the lines of...

from:

      <t>If a public specification calls for use of an
         _underscore-prefixed domain node name, the 'global'
         (right-most) _underscored name MUST be entered into this
          registry. </t>

to:
      <t>If a public specification calls for use of an
         _underscore-prefixed domain node name, the 'global'
         (highest level, and typically right-most) _underscored name MUST
         be entered into this registry. </t>

Does this cause anyone intolerable heart-burn?  If it does, please at 
least explain but preferably offer something better.

Thanks.

d/

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Jul 2018 17:09:43 -0400

>         be entered into this registry. </t>

I only have minor dyspepsia because someone will surely take this as
as an indication that somewhere in the anglophone world, domains are
displayed with the root on the left.  Or maybe at the top.  No doubt
the founders of JANET would be amused.

Since it'll always be on the right for people reading this document in English,
I'd rather leave it alone.

R's,
John

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:29:51 -0700

> I'd rather leave it alone.

Except that a) RFCs get translated, and b) people implement RFCs all 
over the world, including places that display rtl.  (cf, 'robustness'.)

d/

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 22:35:14 +0100

On 9 July 2018 at 19:48, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>8

> least explain but preferably offer something better.

I do not suffer from intolerable heart-burn but happy to offer:

 <t>If a public specification calls for the use of an underscore-prefixed
domain name,
the underscored name closest to the root MUST be entered into this registry.

(Editorial:  The word underscore does not itself need to be
underscore_prefixed)

--Dick

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 07:32:33 -0700

On 7/9/2018 2:35 PM, Dick Franks wrote:
> 
> On 9 July 2018 at 19:48, Dave Crocker <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>  >8
> 
>     Does this cause anyone intolerable heart-burn?  If it does, please
>     at least explain but preferably offer something better.
> 
> 
>   <t>If a public specification calls for the use of an 
> underscore-prefixed domain name,

Thanks.  I've added some tweakage to your text:

  <t>If a public specification calls for use of an _underscore-prefixed
    domain node name, the 'global' underscored name -- the name that is
    closest to the DNS root -- MUST be entered into this registry.
    Historically, this is the right-most name that is begins with an
    underscore.</t>

 > (Editorial:  The word underscore does not itself need to be

   It's there as clarification/reminder, in case the reader isn't sure 
what character is meant.  But I'll re-calibrate its use and take out 
extra ones...

d/

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:04:19 +0100

>    Historically, this is the right-most name that is begins with an

You just seem to have reintroduced yet more confusing and redundant
verbiage.

The whole point of my suggested text was to remove the extraneous
directional adjectives
like "right-most", "highest-level", "top-most", "global", etc., which we
have already established
are not as concise or unambiguous as we might have wished.

Also,  "domain name" is the recognised and recommended usage per RFC7719
and the latest
DNS Terminology draft.

A reference to RFC7719 or its successor would be sufficient for readers
unfamiliar with DNS
terminology, if indeed there are any.

As for _underscore-prefixed,  there are enough examples in the document for
even the most
intellectually challenged reader to grasp what underscore-prefixed domain
names look like.
Idiosyncratic usage reflects badly on the document production standards of
the organisation.

> > underscore-prefixed)

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:58:54 -0700

> because the sentence does not always refer to the top of a zone?

So, this turned into a niggling 'thing' for me and produced a collection 
of small changes.

The basic model now is to introduce the issue early in the document and 
dispatch it once, and then use a single term for the rest of the 
document, without all the distractingly redundant clarifications.

So there's now text in attrleaf that explains about hierarchy, top, 
highest, and the original presentation convention of right, but noting 
that other presentations are possible.

It then declares the term 'global' as referring to the node name of 
interest and only uses that term in the rest of the document.  (Well, 
there are a couple of places where 'highest' was needed as clarification.)

The -fix document doesn't stand alone, so it merely continues the 
convention and does not re-explain it.

d/

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:09:40 +0100

On 12 July 2018 at 02:58, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> dispatch it once, and then use a single term for the rest of the document,
> without all the distractingly redundant clarifications.
>
> highest, and the original presentation convention of right, but noting that
> other presentations are possible.
>

IMO unnecessary.
This will inevitably either overlap or conflict with the draft RFC7719-bis
DNS terminology document.
Better to use already battle-hardened terminology throughout and add
RFC7719-bis citation.

> interest and only uses that term in the rest of the document.

"global" does not tick the right box for me.
Perhaps the underscore-prefixed label (sequence? / tree?) needs to be
described as subordinate to (or rooted at?) a "principal name".

  (Well, there are a couple of places where 'highest' was needed as
> clarification.)

Stephane: "more/most general"
otherwise: "closer/closest to the root"

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:09:14 -0700

On 7/12/2018 3:09 AM, Dick Franks wrote:
>>    highest, and the original presentation convention of right, but
>>    noting that other presentations are possible.
> 
> 
> IMO unnecessary.
> This will inevitably either overlap or conflict with the draft 
> RFC7719-bis DNS terminology document.

I don't understand what 'overlap' you think will exist, but am pretty 
sure I don't agree.

> Better to use already battle-hardened terminology throughout and add 

If it is that battle-hardened for this type of use, then there is no 
doubt a single term in the draft that has already gained widespread use.

Which one is it?

> "global" does not tick the right box for me.

And yet that's the distinguishing name of the attrleaf table in the 
drafts and has been for quite a long time.  There haven't been any 
objections to that term until now.

> described as subordinate to (or rooted at?) a "principal name".

Perhaps you have some usability data that demonstrates pragmatic 
superiority of a particular choice over 'global' for /this/ kind of use 
and can point to the entry in the bis document that already defines it?

Note that the choice echoes the use of 'global dns' that /is/ listed, to 
get at the semantics of the 'reach' for the highest-level underscore name.

> Stephane: "more/most general"

Except that that has no obvious semantic merit, whereas 'highest' is 
directly motivated by referring to position in a hierarchy.

> otherwise: "closer/closest to the root"

Why?

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:39:23 -0700

Folks,

Since WG LC closed for the two attrleaf drafts yesterday, I've generated 
revised versions based on the LC feedback.

I'll submit them as I-Ds when the window opens back up on Monday.  In 
the interim, here is a link to the revised drafts and diffs between them 
and their predecessor drafts:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iex14dfnieq5dfq/AAAsedMLheGdBh6qbwm7tpcAa?dl=0

d/

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Jul 2018 23:29:14 -0400

>https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iex14dfnieq5dfq/AAAsedMLheGdBh6qbwm7tpcAa?dl=0

Overall, looks good.  The text in the new section on wildcards is
mildly fractured, looks like a cut and paste error.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:34:38 -0700

On 7/12/2018 8:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
> The text in the new section on wildcards is

I don't see it, unless you are referring to the removed underscore 
characters, which was intentional.

d/

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 12:16:27 -0400

Thanks, Dave.   After our email, I went through your updated RFC list and
confirmed it with my list, which means either we're both correct or we're
both incorrect.

Tim

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 21:42:23 -0700

On 7/13/2018 9:16 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> which means either we're both correct or we're both incorrect.

for the latter possibility, not just both incorrect, but both incorrect 
in the same way...

that's probably a variant of 'great minds think alike'...

d/