On Sep 20, 2023, at 3:23 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for working on this documentation. > > I have one point that I would like to discuss to clarify the definition > understanding, I hope addressing this would improve this document. > > It defines- > > Full resolver: > This term is used in [RFC1035], but it is not defined there. RFC 1123 defines > a > "full-service resolver" that may or may not be what was intended by "full > resolver" in [RFC1035]. This term is not properly defined in any RFC. > > While section 6 starts with - "This section defines the terms used for the > systems that act as DNS clients, DNS servers, or both. ". It does not really > define "Full resolver". I am not sure what I am supposed to do with the > definition (more like description) provided here. This should be clarified. > what was the consideration here?
We touch on the topic of "not defined in earlier RFCs" at the beginning of the introduction, and there are other terms in other parts of the document that fall into that category, most notably "host name". In the case of "full resolver", the WG decided not to make up a definition in this document because the term in not used much any more. However, because it is used many times in the foundational DNS documents (RFCs 1035 and 1123), the WG wanted it listed here to show that it there is no current agreement on what it means. Would it help if we amended the above description (you are correct that it is not a definition) by changing the last sentence to "This term is not properly defined in any RFC, and there is no consensus on what the term means"? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In the spirit of defining the "global DNS" and "private DNS", the security > section should perhaps remove the use of "the DNS" and use "global DNS" and > "private DNS" instead. A very minor comment. But a good one! Given that some people will read the Security Considerations more carefully than the other sections, it's good to remind the reader of the difference here. Will fix. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
