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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:08:53 -0700

Adam Roach 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the time and effort that went into this document. I agree with other
reviewers that this document is well-presented and informative.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General:

The document seems to omit a definition for the term "class," although it is
used in many places an clearly has a very precise meaning in DNS parlance. It
would be nice to see one added, as I got a bit confused when I hit the
definition for "Class independent" in section 5 and realized that I'd been
conflating "RR type" with "Class" -- and couldn't find guidance in this document
to clarify the difference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2:

>  Multicast DNS:  "Multicast DNS (mDNS) provides the ability to perform
>     DNS-like operations on the local link in the absence of any
>     conventional Unicast DNS server.

This definition seems to be a little oversimplified in light of the mechanisms
described by draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid and draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5:

>  Master file:  "Master files are text files that contain RRs in text
>     form.  Since the contents of a zone can be expressed in the form
>     of a list of RRs a master file is most often used to define

Nit: "...list of RRs, a master..."
                    ^

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5:
>  Owner:  The domain name where a RR is found ([RFC1034], Section 3.6).

Nit: "...an RR..." (see RFC 7322 §1, CMOS 10.9)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§6:

>     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].

These sentences seem redundant and partially contradictory. I suspect the first
one should be removed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§6:

>  Privacy-enabling DNS server:  "A DNS server that implements DNS over
>     TLS [RFC7858] and may optionally implement DNS over DTLS
>     [RFC8094]."  (Quoted from [RFC8310], Section 2)

This definition seems incomplete in light of the mechanism defined in
draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acknowledgements:

>  The following is the Acknowledgements for RFC 7719.  Additional
>  acknowledgements may be added as this draft is worked on.

This feels out of date. Consider removing.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:10:56 +0000

> to clarify the difference.

Good catch. I'll ask my co-authors if they want to add a trivial one:

Class: A class "identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol" (Quoted from <xref target="RFC1034"/>, Section 3.6)
"The DNS tags all data with a class as well as the type, so that we can allow parallel use of different formats for data of type address."
(Quoted from <xref target="RFC1034"/>, Section 2.2)

Agree, but neither of those drafts gave much explanation of how their proxying and forwarding affected RFC 6762.

We were pretty strict about not making editorial fixes to quotations from source RFCs.

There too.

Yep.

Agree, but it is what we have as a quotation.

Good catch, done.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:47:35 -0500

> (Quoted from <xref target="RFC1034"/>, Section 2.2)

Thanks.

> Agree, but neither of those drafts gave much explanation of how their proxying and forwarding affected RFC 6762.

It would seem worth a note that technologies exist that cause mDNS to 
work across multiple links. I'm okay if you decide to leave this out.

> We were pretty strict about not making editorial fixes to quotations from source RFCs.

Fair enough.

>> Nit: "...an RR..." (see RFC 7322 §1, CMOS 10.9)

In that case, this definition appears to be missing quotation marks.

> Agree, but it is what we have as a quotation.

Other definitions consist of quotations plus additional information 
(frequently in the form of another quotation). If the notion here is 
that you don't want to perform any synthesis, I'm sympathetic to that 
(although other definitions do contain substantial synthesis, so it 
doesn't seem like a hard-and-fast rule). If that's not the rationale, 
consider adding explanatory text pointing to DoH. I'm not really 
bothered either way, though. As Spencer is fond of saying: do the right 
thing.

/a

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 15:31:34 -0700

> In that case, this definition appears to be missing quotation marks.

Good point. Added.

> bothered either way, though. As Spencer is fond of saying: do the 
> right thing.

Another good point. Added as well.

--Paul Hoffman