Subject: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:08:49 -0400

Back in 2014, we started with "DNS Terminology" which became RFC7719
Then In 2016, this became a BCP version of "DNS Terminology" which is now
RFC8499

Now, in 2109, there is a request to include additional terms to reflect
the new transports DNS is being used over.    There is still discussion
over
whether all these terms make sense, but the underlying need exists.

This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter

The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter/

Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

This call for adoption ends: 15 August 2019

Thanks,
tim wicinski
DNSOP co-chair

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:21:42 +0000

On Aug 1, 2019, at 9:08 AM, Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Then In 2016, this became a BCP version of "DNS Terminology" which is now RFC8499
> 
> the new transports DNS is being used over.    There is still discussion over 
> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter/
> 

FWIW, some people where asking for changes in the -01 version even after the -02 came out. As a WG document, the content will belong to the WG, and I'm happy to make whatever changes the WG wants. (FWIW2: that is the way all WG documents are supposed to work....)

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:04:53 -0400

In favour of adoption. Simple, short and clear document. 

Paul

Sent from mobile device

> On Aug 1, 2019, at 12:08, Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:08:56 +0100

> On 1 Aug 2019, at 18:04, Paul Wouters <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

+1

---

From: Tommy Jensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 17:12:34 +0000

+1
________________________________
From: DNSOP <[email-masked]> on behalf of Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 10:08 AM
To: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>; dnsop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter

+1

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdnsop&amp;data=02%7C01%7CJensen.Thomas%40microsoft.com%7Cc5730243858c4e50932808d716a2faa2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637002761571689067&amp;sdata=L1Eo%2BvUOQvfl6rF0NihzWSjJzl5t0D%2BvF355VAaIvzA%3D&amp;reserved=0

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:27:13 +1000

despite my comments at the microphone, +1 for adoption. I think this
is good work and should be closed out.

"and I still don't like do53"

-G

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:30:10 -0400

<no hats>
I believe that this should be adopted - having consistent and well
agreed to terminology is important and helpful. I'm also glad that
there are people willing to do this - I can think of few things more
annoying to write than a terminology document...
</no hats>

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:33:11 -0400

With no hats, I agree with George that I still don't like Do53.

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 15:33:48 -0700

> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

I think it is ok to adopt, but it would be better if the "Classic DNS"
section used the word "unencrypted":

"Classic DNS:  Unencrypted DNS over UDP or TCP as defined in [RFC1035]"

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 09:07:58 -0400 (EDT)

> With no hats, I agree with George that I still don't like Do53.

The d053 term has already been removed after initial feedback during
the dnsop meeting :)

Paul

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 09:33:37 -0400

Yes, MR Hoffmann has been faster than me. again.

Tim

---

From: Vladimír Čunát <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 16:01:58 +0200

> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

I'm in favor of adoption.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to suggest content changes in this same
thread already, but I suppose adoption itself will be easy to get
consensus about.
RDoT: I believe the wording should not exclude forwarding between two
resolvers (when neither is really a stub).  That seems actually a
relatively common use case for DoT.

--Vladimir

---

From: Töma Gavrichenkov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:59:51 +0300

In favor of adoption.

And while we're at it, doesn't it make sense to (kinda proactively)
include some potential transports in the draft (like DoQ) to avoid RFC
one-liners in future? Even only to note later that those didn't see
widespread adoption afterwards.

--
Töma

---

From: Töma Gavrichenkov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:26:14 +0300

Errata:

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019, 5:59 PM Töma Gavrichenkov <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Even only to note later that those didn't see

* "Even _if_ only ...", I'm not really that pessimistic.

--
Töma

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 09:12:44 -0700

> widespread adoption afterwards.

I think for the sake of all of our sanity our terminology documents
should describe observed usage, not make speculative decisions on what
to call things that nobody has yet needed a name for.

Joe

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:32:12 -0400

The Call for Adoption period has ended and DNSOP has adopted the document.
Thanks for all the comments
(and calling me out on failing to read the current version.  I am
chastised).   The Working Group will get to
work through the terms in this draft as we move it forward.

thanks
Tim