The 53U, 53T, 53UT ordering makes more sense to me, since it aligns with the DoH/DoT alignment of protocol indicator followed by transport indicator ordering. ________________________________ From: DNSOP <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Paul Wouters <p...@nohats..ca> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 10:29 AM To: Evan Hunt <e...@isc.org> Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Evan Hunt wrote: > "Do53" is a handy abbreviation, but I'm concerned that using it as a > coequal peer of DoT and DoH will lead to fuzzy thinking. Indeed. U53, T53 and UT53 (or 53U, 53T, 53UT) would be far more informative.. Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdnsop&data=02%7C01%7CJensen.Thomas%40microsoft.com%7Ca83a347f25ef461c263708d71125b5a6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636996725966251868&sdata=l29PLDfowCk0761lJXtpG4%2FZEvgf8nSkmKWLZ8HxcFE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
