Subject: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 10:27:32 -0800

Greetings again.

Some of the new terms added to the terminology-bis draft 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/)since 
RFC 7719 can be a bit tricky. This week, we hope you will look at the 
definitions in the draft for:
- In-bailiwick
- Out-of-bailiwick
- In-domain
- Sibling domain
Please review these terms and comment on the list if you think the 
definitions should change.

--Paul Hoffman

[[ As a reminder, we asked the following last week, but got no reply: 
For the past many versions of the terminology-bis draft 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/), 
Section 2 has definitions of "Global DNS" and "Private DNS", based on 
the facets listed in "Naming system". This was discussed heavily on the 
list earlier, but it is also a pretty big change, so we want to be sure 
that it is what the WG wants. Please review these terms and comment on 
the list if you think the definitions should change. ]]

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:06:00 +1100

The text for "in-bailwick" is too restrictive, it doesn’t just cover NS records or
glue records.

In-bailwick refers to records that in the normal course of DNS resolution
would have been requested of by the server the current response is from.
e.g. if you are querying a .com server then all records in the response that end
with .com are in-bailwick.

Mark

> On 5 Dec 2017, at 5:27 am, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Greetings again.
> 
> Some of the new terms added to the terminology-bis draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/)since RFC 7719 can be a bit tricky. This week, we hope you will look at the definitions in the draft for:
> - In-bailiwick
> - Out-of-bailiwick
> - In-domain
> - Sibling domain
> Please review these terms and comment on the list if you think the definitions should change.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> [[ As a reminder, we asked the following last week, but got no reply: For the past many versions of the terminology-bis draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/), Section 2 has definitions of "Global DNS" and "Private DNS", based on the facets listed in "Naming system". This was discussed heavily on the list earlier, but it is also a pretty big change, so we want to be sure that it is what the WG wants. Please review these terms and comment on the list if you think the definitions should change. ]]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:42:34 +0900 (JST)

Thanks.

terminology-bis-08:
| In-bailiwick: An adjective to describe a name server whose name is
|    either subordinate to or (rarely) the same as the zone origin.

Ok, In-bailwick in terminology-bis-08 may be restrictive because "the
zone origin" is unclear. I intended that "the zone origin" is the zone
origin of parent zone. The sentence needs more words.

NEW

  In-bailiwick: An adjective to describe a name server whose name is
       either subordinate to or (rarely) the same as the origin
       of the zone that contains the delegation to the name server.

... bad english text ... please fix.

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <[email-masked]>

> From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 08:56:55 +1000

feels like a concrete example in a.b.c.example.com terms would help
define both in-baliwick, and out-of-baliwick, for the cases.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:30:00 +0900 (JST)

Thanks.

Adding a example as a text is a little complicated.

Adding examples as a table is good ? or too large ?

Delegation  | Parent | Name Server Name   | Type
            | Zone   |                    |
------------+--------+--------------------+------------------------------
com         | .      | a.gtld-servers.net | in-bailiwick / sibling domain
net         | .      | a.gtld-servers.net | in-bailiwick / in-domain
example.org | org    | ns.example.org     | in-bailiwick / in-domain
example.org | org    | ns.ietf.org        | in-bailiwick / sibling domain
example.org | org    | ns.example.com     | out-of-bailiwick
example.jp  | jp     | ns.example.jp      | in-bailiwick / in-domain
example.jp  | jp     | ns.example.ne.jp   | in-bailiwick / sibling domain
example.jp  | jp     | ns.example.com     | out-of-bailiwick

> From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:27:33 +1000

yes. this is good.

-G

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:24:46 +0100

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:27:32AM -0800,
 Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote 

> - Out-of-bailiwick

The current definition is restrictive: it mentions only name servers.

IMHO, "in-bailiwick" could be said for any domain name, even if it has
less practical consequences than for name servers. For instance,
www.toto.fr is in-bailiwick for .fr.

> In-bailiwick name servers may have glue records in their parent zone

Wrong use of "parent" here, since the definition of "parent" says "The
domain in which the Child is registered". Should be "ancestor", as in
"d.nic.fr's parent zone is fr but it requires glue in the root, which
is an ancestor"

> - Sibling domain

I tend to think it would be better to drop these two terms. I find
them rarely used and they don't seem to bring much value.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:44:27 +0100

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:30:00AM +0900,
 [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote 

> Adding examples as a table is good ? or too large ?

No, not too large. It is a very good idea and this table is useful.

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:55:17 -0800

Thanks for the input. This is now slated for the next version of the draft.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Martin Hoffmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 03:56:22 +0100

> www.toto.fr is in-bailiwick for .fr.

So a domain name would be in-bailiwick with regards to a given zone if
it is part of that zone or any of its child zones?

> them rarely used and they don't seem to bring much value.

They do make it clear whether glue records are necessary, which is
useful. "Sibling domain" seems to also include the case where the name
server is part of the parent zone which is un-intuitive but also
probably rare enough to not warrant a separate term. One option would
be to only define "in-domain" as a special case of "in-bailiwick" that
needs special treatment?

Kind regards,
Martin

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:13:18 +0100

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:56:22AM +0100,
 Martin Hoffmann <[email-masked]> wrote 

> it is part of that zone or any of its child zones?

Yes. Practical consequences: an authoritative name server can reply
NOERROR or NXDOMAIN if and only if the name is in-bailiwick. And
REFUSED (or may be SERVFAIL) otherwise.

---

From: Martin Hoffmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:08:13 +0100

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > > IMHO, "in-bailiwick" could be said for any domain name, even if
> > > it has less practical consequences than for name servers. For
> > > instance, www.toto.fr is in-bailiwick for .fr.  
> > 
> > So a domain name would be in-bailiwick with regards to a given zone
> > if it is part of that zone or any of its child zones?  
> 
> Yes.

In that case, perhaps we can use a definition along these lines? At
least to me it seems intuitively clear whereas with the current
definition I had to think for a bit to make sense of it.

Except that "child zone" should probably be "subordinate zones" or
something similar to also include (great)*grandchildren.

Kind regards,
Martin

---

From: "Niall O'Reilly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:34:15 +0000

> something similar to also include (great)*grandchildren.

If "ancestor" were acceptable, then the natural counterpart would be
"descendant".

0,02

Niall O'Reilly