Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

On Feb 25, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: > > I understand "cache-only" or "caching-only" DNS server as being, strictly > speaking, one which loads *no* authoritative data. Typically, this is a > resolver which populates its cache by initially priming with some "root > hints" confi

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

ub" for it, are not considered "authoritative" and the instance does not respond authoritatively for the zone. - Kevin -Original Message- From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:53 PM To: Declan Ma Cc: IETF DN

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

On Jan 20, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Declan Ma wrote: > As for 'DNS Servers', I think we should set aside space for 'Cache-only DNS > Server' which is pervasive in all kinds of DNS document. Can you clarify what you think a "cache-only DNS server" is? I'm not seeing how a server can be cache-only with

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

A few years ago at ISC, we spent some hours discussing that the generic term "forwarders" really had multiple different meanings: https://www.isc.org/blogs/dns-forwarders/ (To give credit, I think most of that is from Jelte and Shane.) ___ DNSOP maili

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > > Forwarding resolver by policy does not do recursion but requests > upstream to perform recursion. Aargh no. A forwarding resolver makes RD=1 queries to an upstream resolver. This is a recursive query. The upstream resolver replies with RA=1 which means it supports r

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

> On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:16:47PM -0800, > Paul Hoffman wrote > a message of 17 lines which said: > >> Greetings again. Andrew, Kazunori, and I have done a massive >> revision on the DNS terminology draft based on the input we got

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:16:47PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote a message of 17 lines which said: > Greetings again. Andrew, Kazunori, and I have done a massive > revision on the DNS terminology draft based on the input we got on > the -00. We're sure we have further to go, but we wanted people t

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

where the origin of one of the zones is the child of the other zone. If there are some examples which show what the zone cuts are, that will be great. Jiankang Yao From: Paul Hoffman Date: 2015-01-20 06:16 To: IETF DNSOP WG Subject: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft Greet

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

At Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:16:47 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > [...] we wanted people to look over the new version and give > feedback. Thanks! The introduction presents the definition, "The DNS is a simple query-response protocol whose messages in both directions have the same format." Ma

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

At Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:54:18 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: > > RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For > > types such as A//SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe not for TXT. I > > also think views and other imple

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > I'ld suggest using the following text from RFC1034 (section 4.2.1): > "The authoritative data for a zone is simply all of the RRs attached to > all of the nodes from the top node of the zone down to leaf nodes or > nodes above cuts around t

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

At Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:16:47 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Greetings again. Andrew, Kazunori, and I have done a massive > revision on the DNS terminology draft based on the input we got on > the -00. We're sure we have further to go, So far, great job! > but we wanted people to > look over th

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: > > TTL: It might be worth using the word 'maximum' in relation to the > TTL; I think there is consensus that TTLs may be truncated. Yes, due to memory pressure, server restarts, administrative fiat, DNSSEC (RFC 4035 section 5.3.3), etc. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchht

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

> Colm MacCárthaigh > Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:36 AM > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Paul Vixie > wrote: > > > if their server returns only one RR at a time, then there are ten > RRsets, as you say. however, such a server wo

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For > types such as A//SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe not for TXT. I > also think views and other implementation specific features confuse > things here. A user might have

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

Thanks for the suggestions! However: On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: > RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For > types such as A//SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe not for TXT. I > also think views and other implementation specific features

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

> Colm MacCárthaigh > Wednesday, January 21, 2015 6:52 AM > > > RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For > types such as A//SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe not for TXT. I > also think views and other implementation specific features con

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

Awesome doc, just some small observations; TTL: It might be worth using the word 'maximum' in relation to the TTL; I think there is consensus that TTLs may be truncated. RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For types such as A//SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe no

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

Paul, As for 'DNS Servers', I think we should set aside space for 'Cache-only DNS Server' which is pervasive in all kinds of DNS document. And as in 'Zones', you mentioned 'Origin'. So, I suggest adding a paragraph to describe 'Default TTL', which is represented as $TTL in zone file. Still, '

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

Oh, It's a great work and helpful as a collection of important DNS terminology. It's not easy to choose the terminology from massive DNS-related RFCs. By the way, I notice the "Priming" is not included in the draft. I think it is a common jargon(not documented yet) used in the community. There ma

Re: [DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

All, This seems like a tremendously useful document to have out there. Thanks to the authors for the effort and I suspect discussion on the list would be helpful. As a general reminder, we had a very productive meeting in Honolulu, and now we're about halfway from there to Dallas (somewhere jus

[DNSOP] New version of the DNS terminology draft

Greetings again. Andrew, Kazunori, and I have done a massive revision on the DNS terminology draft based on the input we got on the -00. We're sure we have further to go, but we wanted people to look over the new version and give feedback. Thanks! Name: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology R