I don't like it either because DAO is a well known acronym for Data Access Object.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 12:49 PM Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:46 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> > wrote: > >> On Mar 24, 2019, at 11:18 AM, bert hubert <bert.hub...@powerdns.com> >> wrote: >> > It may be good to add a note that "DoH is the protocol as defined in >> > [RFC8484]. The operation of this protocol by browser vendors and cloud >> > providers is frequently also called 'DoH'. DoH-the-protocol is >> > therefore frequently conflated with DoH being used to perform >> > DNS lookups in a different fashion than configured by the network >> settings >> > (see DaT and DaO)." >> >> A much better outcome would be that people who are saying DoH when they >> mean DaT or DaO would use the new terms. That is, this is a forward-looking >> document because we're making up new terms. >> > > <no hats> > This is likely to be an annoying comment, but I don't really like the DaO > "acronym", simply because I'm not sure how people will pronounce it -- I > could see people mishearing "DaO" as "DoH", or the other way round -- > unfortunately I don't have a better suggestion. Is it just me who has this > issue? > > </no hats> > W > > > >> >> > Secondly, I understand the technical need for the wording of the >> definition >> > of DaO. But I had to read this all a few times before I understood that >> > 'DaO' includes what I've referred to as DoC (DNS over Cloud). I think >> > definitions should be easy to understand because otherwise they don't >> > function. >> >> I fully agree; proposed changes to this wording are quite welcome. It's a >> new term, after all. >> >> > I'm also not too hot for conflating "user consciously changes >> > /etc/resolv.conf or equivalent" with "application makes the choice for >> the >> > user". >> >> The split here is more "someone changes from traditional without the user >> knowing, when the user cares". If you have a better way to express that, >> that would be great. >> >> > Perhaps we should talk about 'Per-application stubs'? Because this is >> the >> > nub. >> >> Maybe, but I'm hesitant to make the break that way because some >> applications' stubs use the traditional resolver, others don't. I would be >> hesitant to conflate those two. >> >> > I'm willing to write text once we have discussed this a bit. >> >> Thanks! >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
