Subject: [DNSOP] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 01:55:45 -0700

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Ready

Please find below the ops-dir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis. I
reviewed version 11 of the document.

This document obsoletes RFC 7719, updating and expanding the range of
definitions for the DNS protocols and systems, bringing it in line with the
current use. From the operator community this is a very important and useful
document, as it provides a one hop reference for the important terms in the
deployment and operation of the DNS. As this is not a new protocol, or an
existing protocol extension, an RFC 5706 review does not apply.

This document is Ready from the OPS-DIR perspective. The comments below could
be addressed to improve clarity, but they are not show-stoppers:

1. One important difference between Informational RFC 7719 and the current
document is its elevation to the status of BCP. There must be good reasons for
this decision (like avoiding downrefs in new work, other), and I believe that
it would be useful to include a short justification, maybe in the Introduction
section, in case the document will be approved and published as a BCP.

2. In section 2:

'An ordered list of zero or more octets and which makes up a
      portion of a domain name.'

This sentence seems to be broken, it is not clear what 'and' relates to.

3. In section 2:

' At the time this
      document is published, that operator is Public Technical
      Identifiers (PTI).'

A reference would be useful.

4. In section 5:

I cannot find a definition of the term 'resource record' itself. I can see RR
as acronym, then a discussion of RRset, etc., but not the term itself. Do I
miss something?

5. I cannot find a definition or expansion of SOA. I can see 'SOA field names',
'SOA resource records', etc. but not just 'SOA'

6. Section 6:

'Master server:  See primary server.

 Primary master: '

Is it 'Primary server' or 'Primary master'?

7. I cannot find a definition for 'NS records'

8. I found the Index to be very useful, and I wish other documents of this size
and complexity (or worse) include such a section.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 01:09:25 +0000

> section, in case the document will be approved and published as a BCP.

This is covered in the shepherd report, and I can't really find a good place to put in in the document. As the shepherd says:

It's an effort to collect a large number of terms from a large number of sources, primarily RFCs but also common usage by practitioners. As such, it aims to improve interoperability among implementations and operational configuration of the DNS by giving implementers and practitioners a common reference vocabulary. Clearly the more people use it, the more useful it will be, so BCP seems right.

In addition, from the process perspective, the document's status is BCP because it updates RFC 2308, which is a Proposed Standard.

> This sentence seems to be broken, it is not clear what 'and' relates to.

Good catch. Will remove the "and".

> A reference would be useful.

Will add:

(See &lt;https://pti.icann.org/&gt: for more information about PTI operating the IANA Functions.)

No, you didn't. The definitions of resource records in RFC 1034 are:

>From Section 2.4:

   - The DOMAIN NAME SPACE and RESOURCE RECORDS, which are
     specifications for a tree structured name space and data
     associated with the names.

>From Section 3.6:

A domain name identifies a node.  Each node has a set of resource
information, which may be empty.  The set of resource information
associated with a particular name is composed of separate resource
records (RRs).  The order of RRs in a set is not significant, and need
not be preserved by name servers, resolvers, or other parts of the DNS.

Frankly, it doesn't feel like either ("data associated with names" or "set of resource information") are helpful enough to include in the terminology document. If you disagree, we're open to suggestions. 

> 'SOA resource records', etc. but not just 'SOA'

Good call. Will add:

"SOA" stands for "start of a zone of authority".

> Is it 'Primary server' or 'Primary master'?

It is "primary server", which was defined just above. Will rearrange to make this clearer.

> 7. I cannot find a definition for 'NS records'

Will add:

An authoritative server is named in the NS ("name server") record in the parent zone.

> and complexity (or worse) include such a section.

Thanks, this is good to hear. (And I say that as the co-author who objected strenuously to adding the index because no one uses them...)

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:04:32 +0300

Hi Paul,

Thank you for the timely and to-the-points answer. Thanks for addressing my
comments, I will not insist on items that you decided to leave as they are,
it's up to the OPS ADs to raise the issue if they consider any of these
important enough. As I said, I believe that the document is Ready from an
OPS-DIR perspective, and none of the comments is a show-stopper.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks, this is good to hear. (And I say that as the co-author who
> objected strenuously to adding the index because no one uses them...)
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
>
>
Maybe it's because communities that are less dealing with the terminology
on the day-to-day basis are the ones that need more such Index sessions?

Regards,

Dan