On 8/31/18 11:10 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 30, 2018, at 3:08 AM, Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> wrote:
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.
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)
Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
§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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
§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..."
^
We were pretty strict about not making editorial fixes to quotations from
source RFCs.
Fair enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
§5:
Owner: The domain name where a RR is found ([RFC1034], Section 3.6).
Nit: "...an RR..." (see RFC 7322 §1, CMOS 10.9)
There too.
In that case, this definition appears to be missing quotation marks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
§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.
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
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
