Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

From: Tim WIcinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 16:39:58 +0900

I spoke to Ed this morning during breakfast, and we discussed his 
draft.  I do like this as a well written read through the history of 
namespace and domains, but I feel (and I think Ed even would agree) this 
is not so much a DNSOP document, but something that should be in an area 
where they need a better understanding of DNS (*cough* appsawg *cough*).

How does the working group think of this?

thanks
tim

On 10/30/15 8:23 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> A while back I floated a draft across this mail list and got (what I
> think) is sufficient (perhaps not the right word) feedback from the WG.  I
> updated the document and resubmitted.  FWIW, this is the document link:
>          https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-domain-names-01
>
> I'm not even asking for comment on the list (but you can if you want).
> When I rev'd the document, I didn't mention it on this list (until now).
>
> What I'm asking for is - when in Yokohama, if you have an interest in this
> I'm willing to discuss.
>
> The issue in the document is both internal to DNS and external to DNS, I'm
> looking for broader input (such as applications area topics).
>
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 07:50:47 +0000

Ed's document is not about DNS but about names. That is actually the whole point. So, IMHO, it should not be redirected to a wg that needs better understanding of DNS but to a wg that needs better understanding of names...

I could also argue that this argument also applies to the discussion on  issues around 6761. There is little DNS specific there, let alone DNS operational...

Alain

On Nov 3, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Tim WIcinski <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

I spoke to Ed this morning during breakfast, and we discussed his draft.  I do like this as a well written read through the history of namespace and domains, but I feel (and I think Ed even would agree) this is not so much a DNSOP document, but something that should be in an area where they need a better understanding of DNS (*cough* appsawg *cough*).

thanks
tim

Ed

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:46:36 +0900

I think the dicussion of names is useful and insightful.

we can find a home for it I'm pretty sure but I'm happy to see
discussion of it.

joel

---

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:13:20 -0500

Agree with Joel here— there’s useful review for it in DNSOP *and* elsewhere IMHO.

Ed?

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:46 AM, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 21:26:38 +0000

>Agree with Joel here— there’s useful review for it in DNSOP *and*

The document has three goals:
1) Define Domain Names
2) Develop "helper" terminology to go along with the concept
3) Perhaps, if this is not increasing scope too much, explore issues
related to how Domain Names are resolved.

To achieve these goals, the start is to document the existing practices
(plural) for handling of what is collectively thought to be domain names.
DNSOP certainly has a lot of expertise in that regard, so a discussion in
the WG would be helpful and even a necessary first step.  And the
inventory of expertise within DNSOP certainly can help advance an informed
opinion on each of the goals.

But I caution against (and I realize that this is not being suggested)
maturing the conversation too greatly within DNSOP.  What I mean is that
for a definition of Domain Name to be adequately developed we need non-DNS
input.  Let me emphasize that Suzanne has that right in the clip above, so
I believe there is general understanding of what I'm trying to convey.

To drop below hand-waving, sitting in DNSSD and DBOUND this week I
experienced a few fits of "there's gotta be clarity on naming."  And
that's just in two DNS-derived WGs.  Homenet will face this, and they have
gotten back to naming issues (referring to the routing threads dominating
the mail list for a while), they will need at least to have a better set
of terminology (second goal).  I'm not being complete here, just dropping
in some "points of data."

I'm welcome to a discussion of this on the DNSOP WG mailing list.  I
haven't looked at the agenda for Thursday, I imagine it is full.  Still,
if there's a desire to have an "advertisement" of the draft I'd be willing
to do so - me not expecting to do so.  If you want to consider this for
another WG meeting, I'm sure there will be something to discuss.

Ed

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:28:08 +0900

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:39:58PM +0900,
 Tim WIcinski <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 126 lines which said:

> this is not so much a DNSOP document, but something that should be
> in an area where they need a better understanding of DNS (*cough*
> appsawg *cough*).
> 

Apparently, all the people who spoke said that DNSOP is fine for this
document, and I agree with them. We know about domain names (I hope
so), not just about the DNS, and I do not see a better place.