On 11/3/22 17:44, Benno Overeinder wrote:
Questions:

1. Move Bailiwick to historical.

1a.  During the interim, there was a (feeling of) consensus to drop a
      formal definition of "bailiwick", but keep a historical definition
      (how it was interpreted by) of "bailiwick". Also do not define and
      use the term "in-bailiwick".

      Suggested terms to use are "in-domain name server" and "sibling
      domain domain server", as defined and used in
      draft-draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional, section 2.1 and 2.2.

      [The latest draft of glue-is-not-optional does provide a definition
      of sibling domain name servers, but it does not really provide one
      for in-domain name servers.  That would be easy to fix.]

1b.  Does this also mean changing the definition of "out-of-bailiwick"
      to a more historical definition as well?  Or do we still need a
      term for in-domain name server, sibling domain name server and ...
      (alternative for out-of-bailiwick)?

      Is "unrelated name server" a term that can be used?
I think "unrelated name server" is easy to misunderstand, as the term is unclear about 
what kind of relation it refers to. For example, a naive interpretation of an "unrelated" 
nameserver may be a sibling nameserver that is operated by another (unrelated) DNS provider. I 
would think that such misunderstandings will be frequent when this term is introduced.

Think about various degrees of relationship, the following observation occurred 
to me.

- in-domain nameservers are, in a sense, related to the 0th order (no 
delegations not shared between zone and NS),

- sibling nameservers are related to 1st order (one delegation not shared, 
namely the one from the parent to the NS zone),

- out-of-bailiwick nameservers are related to 2nd or higher order (example.com 
with ns1.example.net has 2 delegations not shared, namely the net delegation 
and the example.net delegation).

One possible would thus be to establish terminology in terms of n-th order. E.g., sibling 
NS is a "1st-order foreign delegation NS" or something like that. -- I'm aware 
this sounds very bumpy, and it's simply what just occurred to me, not at all thought 
through.

I'm also not trying to crash the interim results, just sharing the observation. 
If not helpful, ignore. :)

Best,
Peter

--
https://desec.io/

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to