On 29 Aug 2017, at 20:08, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Speaking as one of the presumed editors of post-7719 -- one who is, so-presumed, supposed to sort this problem out -- I hope it's ok to state _very strongly_ that I appreciate the extensive discussion of this issue. I think this is very much one of the kinds of knotty terminological problems that has created enormous difficulty for people approaching the DNS for the first time. Not only are terms hard to understand; but when you come across them, they seem to be slippery.At the same time, and taking off my editor hat for the moment, I am quite uncomfortable having a terminology document (which is what this thread is about) make the term not-slippery. It _is_ slippery in the reference documents. I don't think it helps us to try to settle those disputes. I think 7719-bis can do two things: 1. Document, as clearly as possible, the nature of the ambiguity. This thread has helped, but I bet (I haven't checked with my co-editors) that a ¶ well-worked-out on the list (not necessarily the WG please note) would be welcome. 2. Define, as clearly as possible and using new terms, the distinctions in question and provide names for them. These could be, of course, names not previously known.I emphasise again that clarity of definitions is, at least for me, quite important, so ambiguous examples are super valuable. Thanks!
As another co-editor of 7719-bis, I strongly concur with Andrew. I have been flagging all the messages in this thread and waiting for it to peter out before suggesting wording. If someone who is invested in this thread can propose text for 1 and 2, that would help because then others who are invested in the thread can comment and we can get good wording before the editors try.
--Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
