Subject: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:05:18 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm actually not sure if this doc really updates RFC2308 because the two
definitions (Forwarder and QNAME) only say someting like "it is used
differently today" but seem not really to actually update the existing
definitions. I would recommend to either not use the "update" tag or clarify
these definitions.

Thanks for the clarification added based on the TSV-ART review (and thanks
Allison!).

(Potential) nits:
1) OLD:
A set of resource records with the same label, class and
      type, but with different data.  (Definition from [RFC2181])
MAYBE use quotes here at least for the last part of the sentence:
A set of resource records "with the same label, class and
      type, but with different data."  (Definition from [RFC2181])

2) s/Section 4.3.1 of of [RFC1034] /Section 4.3.1 of [RFC1034]/

3) Probably the first sentence should be removed:
"The idea of a primary master is only used by [RFC2136],
      and is considered archaic in other parts of the DNS.

      The idea of a primary master is only used in [RFC1996] and
      [RFC2136]. "

4) Why is there (a) and (b) for the definition of Origin?

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 01:11:54 +0000

Thanks for the review!

> definitions. I would recommend to either not use the "update" tag or clarify

The WG thought that this is "updating 2308" and wanted that pointed out clearly, but if the IESG thinks it is not really updating, we can remove that designation at the top. Please let us know.

>      type, but with different data."  (Definition from [RFC2181])

Agree.

> 2) s/Section 4.3.1 of of [RFC1034] /Section 4.3.1 of [RFC1034]/

Of of course that is what we meant.

>      The idea of a primary master is only used in [RFC1996] and

Agree.

> 4) Why is there (a) and (b) for the definition of Origin?

Because there are two different definitions for two different contexts. We'll make this clearer.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:19:18 +0200

Hi Paul,

I leave the decision about the update to the wg and responsible AD, 
however, if you decide to keep it, maybe you can just rephrase a bit to 
make sure that it is very clear the definition is this doc is the 
current one.

Mirja