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

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:31:42 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

A few other minor comments:

This is listed as informational, but it was last called as a BCP. I'm not
sure if that matters, since a BCP would have been held to as high or
higher a standard than an informational RFC.

The shepherd's answer to question 7 does not address the question about
whether authors have confirmed that they have complied with the IPR
rules.

SoA gets mentioned a few times, but If there is a definition, I failed to
find it.

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:40:07 -0700

> version if a newer version is coming soon.

Just to emphasize what I have said in earlier responses: please don't 
expect a newer version "soon".

> higher a standard than an informational RFC.

If we succeed at publishing the next version, there will be trickier 
choices for publication level, since we might be updating STDs.

> SoA gets mentioned a few times, but If there is a definition, I failed 

The name "SOA" is never expanded in the base RFCs. The closest they come 
it to call it the "start of a zone of authority", which would have come 
out SOAZOA or maybe SOZA, so we didn't try to spell it out.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:13:06 -0500

> expect a newer version "soon".

Got it, okay.

> choices for publication level, since we might be updating STDs.

Understood.

> The name "SOA" is never expanded in the base RFCs. The closest they 
> come it to call it the "start of a zone of authority", which would 
> have come out SOAZOA or maybe SOZA, so we didn't try to spell it out.

Aren't there other "terms people use but aren't explicitly defined in 
the RFCs" in the draft?

Thanks!

Ben.