Subject: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:17:39 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: Yes

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks to the authors for making what I expected to be a dry terminology
document into an adventure of discovery.

I agree with Mirja's assessment about whether this really updates 2308. I also
agree with Alvaro's wish to rethink the BCP status (including his
disinclination to stand in the way of publication this far into the process.)

§2"
- Definition of "Domain Name": I don't profess to be a naming expert, but this
definition doesn't seem very satisfying.  It potentially defines things that I
wouldn't consider domain names. Is there no representation, intent, or other
context that distinguishes an ordered list of labels that is a domain name from
your garden variety ordered lists of labels? (or is the point of this that they
cannot be distinguished?)

- Definition of IDN: 'The current standard, normally called "IDNA2008"...'
That may not age well. I suggest  something to the effect of "The current
standard at the time of this writing, ..."

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:41:39 +0000

On Aug 29, 2018, at 12:17 AM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> definition doesn't seem very satisfying.

It was unsatisfying to everyone, but deemed better than the nothing that we had before this. It would be grand if someone (more likely the IAB than the IESG) pulled together a work team to answer "what is a name, really, when you think hard about it?" Domain names would be a subset of this (if there was a usable answer).

>  It potentially defines things that I
> wouldn't consider domain names.

We tried to prevent that, but we wanted to keep to defining "domain names" without prejudice of DNS names.

> Is there no representation, intent, or other

The latter.

> standard at the time of this writing, ..."

Good point, will add.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:07:15 -0500

That all looks fine, thanks!

Ben.

> On Aug 31, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>