Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

Hi George! On 18 Sep 2015, at 12:58, George Michaelson wrote: > Ed wrote a draft whose purpose claimed to be definitional around what > domain names are. In that context I replied. If you don't really care how > we use words, thats fine too. I don't think that's a reasonable summary of what I

Re: [DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 16 Sep 2015, at 1:55, Benoit Claise wrote: - From the shepherd writeup: "One issue raised by the Working Group was that such a list of definitions would be best served with some sort of Index. The authors and the Document Shepherd agree, but feel it would be better served being handled

Re: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 16 Sep 2015, at 11:21, Alvaro Retana wrote: This is a very nice, and needed reference. However, I don’t understand why it is being published. Because it is very nice and needed. :-) As others have pointed out, the Introduction reads: Therefore, the authors intend to follow this

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote: Is a domain a sub-domain of itself? No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a subdomain of another domain..." There is no language in RFCs 1034 or 1035 that indicate that a domain can be a subdomain of itself. Do we

Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 16 Sep 2015, at 13:31, Ben Campbell wrote: I'm balloting "yes" because I think a document like this should exist. But I share the question others have raised about why publish this version if a newer version is coming soon. Just to emphasize what I have said in earlier responses: please

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 18September2015Friday, at 11:55, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> Is a domain a sub-domain of itself? > > No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a subdomain > of another domain..." There is no

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Paul, Thanks for the followup! That works ... Spencer On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 18 Sep 2015, at 13:41, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > > Hi, Paul, >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Paul Hoffman >> wrote:

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 18 Sep 2015, at 13:14, Stephen Farrell wrote: Hiya, On 18/09/15 19:55, Paul Hoffman wrote: On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote: Is a domain a sub-domain of itself? No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a subdomain of another domain..." There is no

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

On 18 Sep 2015, at 13:41, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: Hi, Paul, On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On 16 Sep 2015, at 9:52, Spencer Dawkins wrote: If this For example, at the time this document is published, the "au" TLD is not considered a

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

If they nest, then yes. if the x. under onion is hash denoted only for other reasons, but otherwise is a truly encompassing domain, then yes. If it has a SOA. and NS, and there is a clear zonecut, its not just a domain, its a DNS domain. But we know that isn't how its going to work: this is a

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

On 9/17/15, 17:03, "DNSOP on behalf of Darcy Kevin (FCA)" wrote: >Ed, > I find the document useful, and illuminating, but that it suffers from >one glaring omission -- no substantive discussion of the relationship >between

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

> On Sep 18, 2015, at 14:16, George Michaelson wrote: > > My private comment bears repeating in public. > > DOMAIN names is about the property of domains. Domains are encompassing, > set-theory/venn-diagram style. A domain and a prefix are analogous concepts. > One is

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

My private comment bears repeating in public. DOMAIN names is about the property of domains. Domains are encompassing, set-theory/venn-diagram style. A domain and a prefix are analogous concepts. One is expressed syntactically somehow, the other is a mathematical property of bounding in a number

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

I think its possible I'm arguing off to the side Ed. But, there was a scoping quality in domain, as applied to domain names, which is pretty "big" in my opinion. Its analogous to the ordering issues in fully qualified (relative) distinguished names in X.500. The order of elements of Surname=

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

>> So it's IMO fine to say ".onion addresses are case-insensitive and >> will comply with existing DNS limitations for label lengths (63) and >> maximum fqdn lengths (253ish)". >> Which contradicts draft-lewis-domain-names-00 > > > So - and not to be pointed - but in your email I reference,

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

On 9/18/15, 9:16, "George Michaelson" wrote: >My private comment bears repeating in public. That's good... >DOMAIN names is about the property of domains. Domains are encompassing, >set-theory/venn-diagram style. A domain and a prefix are analogous >concepts. One is

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

On 9/18/15, 9:54, "Alec Muffett" wrote: > > I feel this may need clarification in your section on Tor addressing. Perhaps > it's not **really** domain-naming, but it **looks** much more like it. The first point of the document is to allow us to answer that "perhaps" - without a

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

On 18 Sep 2015, at 17:19, Joe Abley wrote: > Whether or not we should call an onion or mdns name a "domain name" or > something else is just a detail. I don't think agreeing on the answer is > going to solve any of the problems that we actually have +1

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

Ed wrote a draft whose purpose claimed to be definitional around what domain names are. In that context I replied. If you don't really care how we use words, thats fine too. I agree it won't alter anything and I want to stop here, since I suspect I'm already well on the way to hitting peoples

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

On 18 Sep 2015, at 9:54, Alec Muffett wrote: >> On Sep 18, 2015, at 14:16, George Michaelson wrote: >> >> My private comment bears repeating in public. >> >> DOMAIN names is about the property of domains. Domains are encompassing, >> set-theory/venn-diagram style. A domain