Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: inet:host

[Ladislav Lhotka]

On 22. 07. 20 13:00, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> my understanding is that Lada is now proposing something slightly
> different but I am not sure what exactly, hence I asked again.

Oh yes, I messed it up by mixing different things together, sorry. I
checked again the ML archive, and the message that is relevant to this
thread is this:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/PISOifrtow4oWLGW7meBBSri7nM/

The aim of that proposal was to limit the "inet:host" type to DNS names
that are reasonable as host names, i.e. eliminate values like "." or "_".

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 09:54:00AM +, tom petch wrote:
>> From: netmod  on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder 
>> 
>> Sent: 21 July 2020 20:44
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:04:55AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:
>>>
   - Lada suggested to replace the inet:domain-name usage in
 the union with a new host-name definition that follows
 the NR-LDH definition in RFC 5890.

   - Unclear which problem is fixed and how this works from a
 backwards compatibility perspective.

   - See the thread '6991bis: host' in your private list archive
 (I can't find it in the IETF archive)
>>
>> Try the NETMOD WG list archive 21 July 2019
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>

   - I can't tell for sure that Lada's proposal is (i) correct and (ii)
 not breaking anything

   - Proposal: ?
>>>
>>> Maybe it is better to basically keep the existing inet:domain name for use 
>>> e.g. in host names that appear in all kinds of non-DNS configuration, and 
>>> leave the definition of a domain name type appropriate for use in DNS zone 
>>> data etc. to DNSOP WG.
>>>
>>> So my proposal is to only modify the description accordingly, and in 
>>> particular remove the comment about the use in A//SRV resource records, 
>>> because the existing type isn't really suitable for this purpose.
>>>
>>
>> Can you please send OLD NEW text? I do not really see what needs
>> changes. Note that this type definition gets tweaked everytime by IESG
>> members as well.
>>
>> /js
>>
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 
>>
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: inet:host

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

Tom,

my understanding is that Lada is now proposing something slightly
different but I am not sure what exactly, hence I asked again.

/js

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 09:54:00AM +, tom petch wrote:
> From: netmod  on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> 
> Sent: 21 July 2020 20:44
> 
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:04:55AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:
> >
> > >   - Lada suggested to replace the inet:domain-name usage in
> > > the union with a new host-name definition that follows
> > > the NR-LDH definition in RFC 5890.
> > >
> > >   - Unclear which problem is fixed and how this works from a
> > > backwards compatibility perspective.
> > >
> > >   - See the thread '6991bis: host' in your private list archive
> > > (I can't find it in the IETF archive)
> 
> Try the NETMOD WG list archive 21 July 2019
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> > >
> > >   - I can't tell for sure that Lada's proposal is (i) correct and (ii)
> > > not breaking anything
> > >
> > >   - Proposal: ?
> >
> > Maybe it is better to basically keep the existing inet:domain name for use 
> > e.g. in host names that appear in all kinds of non-DNS configuration, and 
> > leave the definition of a domain name type appropriate for use in DNS zone 
> > data etc. to DNSOP WG.
> >
> > So my proposal is to only modify the description accordingly, and in 
> > particular remove the comment about the use in A//SRV resource records, 
> > because the existing type isn't really suitable for this purpose.
> >
> 
> Can you please send OLD NEW text? I do not really see what needs
> changes. Note that this type definition gets tweaked everytime by IESG
> members as well.
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: inet:host

[tom petch]

From: netmod  on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder 

Sent: 21 July 2020 20:44

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:04:55AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:
>
> >   - Lada suggested to replace the inet:domain-name usage in
> > the union with a new host-name definition that follows
> > the NR-LDH definition in RFC 5890.
> >
> >   - Unclear which problem is fixed and how this works from a
> > backwards compatibility perspective.
> >
> >   - See the thread '6991bis: host' in your private list archive
> > (I can't find it in the IETF archive)

Try the NETMOD WG list archive 21 July 2019

Tom Petch

> >
> >   - I can't tell for sure that Lada's proposal is (i) correct and (ii)
> > not breaking anything
> >
> >   - Proposal: ?
>
> Maybe it is better to basically keep the existing inet:domain name for use 
> e.g. in host names that appear in all kinds of non-DNS configuration, and 
> leave the definition of a domain name type appropriate for use in DNS zone 
> data etc. to DNSOP WG.
>
> So my proposal is to only modify the description accordingly, and in 
> particular remove the comment about the use in A//SRV resource records, 
> because the existing type isn't really suitable for this purpose.
>

Can you please send OLD NEW text? I do not really see what needs
changes. Note that this type definition gets tweaked everytime by IESG
members as well.

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: inet:host

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:

> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:04:55AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:
>> 
>> >   - Lada suggested to replace the inet:domain-name usage in
>> > the union with a new host-name definition that follows
>> > the NR-LDH definition in RFC 5890.
>> >
>> >   - Unclear which problem is fixed and how this works from a
>> > backwards compatibility perspective.
>> >
>> >   - See the thread '6991bis: host' in your private list archive
>> > (I can't find it in the IETF archive)
>> >
>> >   - I can't tell for sure that Lada's proposal is (i) correct and (ii)
>> > not breaking anything
>> >
>> >   - Proposal: ?
>> 
>> Maybe it is better to basically keep the existing inet:domain name for use 
>> e.g. in host names that appear in all kinds of non-DNS configuration, and 
>> leave the definition of a domain name type appropriate for use in DNS zone 
>> data etc. to DNSOP WG.
>> 
>> So my proposal is to only modify the description accordingly, and in 
>> particular remove the comment about the use in A//SRV resource records, 
>> because the existing type isn't really suitable for this purpose.
>>
>
> Can you please send OLD NEW text? I do not really see what needs
> changes. Note that this type definition gets tweaked everytime by IESG
> members as well.

We actually agreed on NEW already here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/FYMAQSJQsPiPSkWTs4lOWIgM2bI/

Lada

>
> /js
>
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka 
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod