Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt

From: Kevin Darcy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:50:43 -0500

Some minor editorial-type suggestions, sorry I didn't bring up sooner:

1. Is the $ORIGIN in the Section 2.2.1 master-file example really 
necessary? All names in the example are fully-qualified anyway, so it 
seems superfluous.

2. Terminally-curious minds always want to know what the response to 
each example query is, but it's too taxing, and I think distracting, to 
noodle those out for the 5 "non-synthesized" examples in Section 2.2.1. 
It also seems a little inconsistent to give the responses for the 
"synthesized" examples, but not the "non-synthesized" ones. Could a 
brief description of the response be given for each of those examples, i.e.

          QNAME=host1.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN
                the response will be "no error, but no data"
                *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because 
host1.example. exists

          QNAME=sub.*.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN
                the response will be "no error, but no data"
                *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because sub.*.example. exists

          QNAME=_telnet._tcp.host1.example., QTYPE=SRV, QCLASS=IN
                the response will be "no such name"
                *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because _tcp.host1.example. exists (without data)

          QNAME=host.subdel.example., QTYPE=A, QCLASS=IN
                the response will either be from the child zone, or will be a referral to the child zone
                *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because subdel.example. exists (and is a zone cut)

          QNAME=ghost.*.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN
                the response will be "no such name"
                *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because *.example. exists

? (Hopefully I got those responses right). Or would that just clutter things up too much?

3. That word in the last paragraph of Section 2.2.1 should be "its" 
(possessive), not "it's" (contraction of "it is" or "it has").

4. Choose either "descendant[s]" or "descendent[s]" and be consistent 
with the usage, at least with respect to the noun forms of the word in 
Section 2.2.3. If "descendant[s]" is chosen, the adjectival form in 
Section 4.1 should probably also be changed to conform (so that a text 
search will find all occurrences).
                                                                         
                                                         - Kevin

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 23:22:59 -0500

At 22:50 -0500 1/9/06, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>necessary? All names in the example are fully-qualified anyway, so 
>it seems superfluous.

In the spirit that "we've already gone past the IETF last call, not 
to mention being in the 4th calendar year of this" I would prefer to 
only make necessary changes at this point.

For one, the process of doing a simple document such as this has 
pushed my patience to the limit.  The submission process even whines 
if you neglect to put in the correct year for the copyright in the 
boilerplate.

Sorry for the rant.

I like to use the $ORIGIN just to set the context.  The reader knows 
it's a zone file coming up.  That's why it was there in the first 
place, I think (it's been there for so many years).

>each example query is, but it's too taxing, and I think distracting, 
>to noodle those out for the 5 "non-synthesized" examples in Section 
>2.2.1. It also seems a little inconsistent to give the responses for 
>the "synthesized" examples, but not the "non-synthesized" ones. 
>Could a brief description of the response be given for each of those 
>examples, i.e.
>
>sub.*.example. exists
>_tcp.host1.example. exists (without data)
>
>subdel.example. exists (and is a zone cut)
>

Admittedly it's (its) late in my day and after reading this a few 
times, I don't understand the issue.  All I am after is showing the 
relationship of names to the synthesis process.  I didn't want to get 
into RFC 2308 (NCACHE) issues, all of the potential sources of 
synthesis is the same - why mention it?

>(possessive), not "it's" (contraction of "it is" or "it has").

That's worth fixing...I never got to the its/it's lesson in school. 
That was on senior skip day I guess.

>4. Choose either "descendant[s]" or "descendent[s]" and be 
>consistent with the usage, at least with respect to the noun forms 
>of the word in Section 2.2.3. If "descendant[s]" is chosen, the 
>adjectival form in Section 4.1 should probably also be changed to 
>conform (so that a text search will find all occurrences).

Being only a native speaker and not formally educated in English 
(past high school), what is the difference between descendant and 
descendent?  Tell me which is correct and I'll use that.  (Where I 
come from, the two are pronounced the same, so I probably didn't even 
know they are different - especially if my spell checker accepts 
both.)

Please don't shoot the editor.

BTW, could items #3 and #4 just be done in the 48 hours?  I hate 
dealing with the ID submission monster.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Inactionable unintelligence is bliss.

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:41:15 +1100

> know they are different - especially if my spell checker accepts 

	descendant (n) one decended from an ancestor; offspring.
	descendent (a) decending.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:06:34 +0100

>
> BTW, could items #3 and #4 just be done in the 48 hours?

Yes.

--Olaf

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:30:41 -0500

Does anyone else want the change #1 and/or #2?

As editor, I've said that I don't think they help, but as editor, I 
serve the the WG's wishes.  So, if there's more support for the other 
edits, send messages quickly.  The documents are to be on an IESG 
agenda this week or next.

---

From: Kevin Darcy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:10:15 -0500

Edward Lewis wrote:

> In the spirit that "we've already gone past the IETF last call, not to 
> mention being in the 4th calendar year of this" I would prefer to only 
> make necessary changes at this point.
>
> pushed my patience to the limit. The submission process even whines if 
> you neglect to put in the correct year for the copyright in the 
> boilerplate.
>
> Sorry for the rant.
>

OK, no problem, just a suggestion.

>> the "synthesized" examples, but not the "non-synthesized" ones. Could 
>> a brief description of the response be given for each of those 
>> examples, i.e.
>>
>> *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because host1.example. exists
>>

Actually, my suggestion doesn't bring up any NCACHE issues, to my 
knowledge. But the response-description for the zone-cut example might 
be a little confusing, because the response depends on whether the 
server in question happens to be authoritative for the child zone.

I was hoping to make the document a little easier to read for those who 
just *have* to know the responses to the example queries, yet would 
rather not spend the time and mental energy to think them through. But 
if it introduces too much clutter, then perhaps it's better to just 
leave the examples the way they are. Not everyone needs to know what the 
responses are; synthesis or non-synthesis is the point of the examples.

>> with the usage, at least with respect to the noun forms of the word 
>> in Section 2.2.3. If "descendant[s]" is chosen, the adjectival form 
>> in Section 4.1 should probably also be changed to conform (so that a 
>> text search will find all occurrences).
>
>
> Being only a native speaker and not formally educated in English (past 
> high school), what is the difference between descendant and 
> descendent? Tell me which is correct and I'll use that. (Where I come 
> from, the two are pronounced the same, so I probably didn't even know 
> they are different - especially if my spell checker accepts both.) 

I think either spelling is acceptable: it should just be consistent, 
that's all. If someone wants to do a text search of the document for 
either "descendant" or "descendent", they should get either 0 hits or 
all hits, depending, where 0 hits is a trigger to try the other spelling 
of the word. I'll note in passing that both RFC 1034 and 2672 spell it 
"descendant", and I couldn't find "descendent" in any of the DNS-related 
RFCs I glanced at.

- Kevin

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:29:47 -0500

In summary, okay...I'll put these changes into the 48 hours as the 
IESG is supposed to review the -10 document as is.

Hopefully I'll remember these changes when the time comes. ;)

At 16:10 -0500 1/10/06, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>>  In the spirit that "we've already gone past the IETF last call, 
>>not to mention being in the 4th calendar year of this" I would 
>>prefer to only make necessary changes at this point.
>>
>>  I like to use the $ORIGIN just to set the context. The reader 
>>knows it's a zone file coming up. That's why it was there in the 
>>first place, I think (it's been there for so many years).
>
>>>  2. Terminally-curious minds always want to know what the response 
>>>to each example query is, but it's too taxing, and I think 
>>>distracting, to noodle those out for the 5 "non-synthesized" 
>>>examples in Section 2.2.1. It also seems a little inconsistent to 
>>>give the responses for the "synthesized" examples, but not the 
>>>"non-synthesized" ones. Could a brief description of the response 
>>>be given for each of those examples, i.e.
>>>
>>relationship of names to the synthesis process. I didn't want to 
>>get into RFC 2308 (NCACHE) issues, all of the potential sources of 
>knowledge. But the response-description for the zone-cut example 
>might be a little confusing, because the response depends on whether 
>the server in question happens to be authoritative for the child 
>zone.
>
>I was hoping to make the document a little easier to read for those 
>who just *have* to know the responses to the example queries, yet 
>would rather not spend the time and mental energy to think them 
>through. But if it introduces too much clutter, then perhaps it's 
>better to just leave the examples the way they are. Not everyone 
>needs to know what the responses are; synthesis or non-synthesis is 
>the point of the examples.
>
>>>  3. That word in the last paragraph of Section 2.2.1 should be 
>>>"its" (possessive), not "it's" (contraction of "it is" or "it 
>>>has").
>>
>>
>>  That's worth fixing...I never got to the its/it's lesson in 
>>school. That was on senior skip day I guess.
>>
>>come from, the two are pronounced the same, so I probably didn't 
>>even know they are different - especially if my spell checker 
>>accepts both.)
>
>either "descendant" or "descendent", they should get either 0 hits 
>or all hits, depending, where 0 hits is a trigger to try the other 
>spelling of the word. I'll note in passing that both RFC 1034 and 
>2672 spell it "descendant", and I couldn't find "descendent" in any 
>of the DNS-related RFCs I glanced at.
>
>- Kevin
>
>
>--

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:47:41 +0100

> IESG is supposed to review the -10 document as is.

I read this as #3 and #4 to be changed in AUTH48 (which is OK)

I have not seen consensus being build up to change  #1 and #2 I  
propose that if we do not see others standing up for these proposed  
changes by end of Monday next week we declare there is no consensus.  
#1 and #2 would not be items that can be fixed in auth 48.

--Olaf
    Co-Chair

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/