Subject: [dnsext] s/ZS/NI/

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:14:46 +0000

Someone suggested off-list that Node Information and NI might be more  
appropriate than the names which were proposed in the template I  
submitted last week and the related I-D. I agree. So, in the hope that  
this puts an end to the unnecessary focus on "zone" that has erupted  
-- and I apologise for needlessly starting --- can we please now use  
this new name and mnemonic? Please don't post any more comments about  
zone semantics in relation to this template or its old name/mnemonic.  
They're not relevant and not worthy of further discussion.

Perhaps this will mean the "WG kick here" sign that I didn't mean to  
put on my backside can now be removed. 

--
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: "Roy Arends" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:08:23 +0100

> put on my backside can now be removed. 

NI as an mnemonic collides with NI as label for the Nicaraguan TLD NI. 
Just ask the folks at MX how often this leads to confusion. Some software 
that relies on presentation format can get confused as well.

Maybe expand it to NINFO?

Roy Arends
Sr. Researcher
Nominet UK

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:27:16 +0000

> Maybe expand it to NINFO?

Sure. Whatever. :-)

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:57:58 +1100

> > Maybe expand it to NINFO?

	And with ICANN's plans to expand the root we may well see
	NINFO as a TLD.
 
	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Kim Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:24:16 -0800

>         And with ICANN's plans to expand the root we may well see

Is there any strong justification for reserving RR types against being TLDs
(or vice versa)? If so, now would be a rather good time to discuss it before
any future TLD policy is crystalised.

kim

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:04:13 -0500

we already have a reserved list, so as a rule, future tld applications 
shouldn't use existing (also in the heady future) RR types, or small 
trains that other kids are known to play with.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:55:59 +0100

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 03:24:16PM -0800,
 Kim Davies <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 20 lines which said:

> Is there any strong justification for reserving RR types against
> being TLDs (or vice versa)?

No. The only reason I see (Roy Arends' example with MX/MG and may be
IN) comes from a very bad user interface design decision in dig... 

We should not make policy decisions because dig tries to be smart and
guesses (badly, quite often) what is the QTYPE and what is the domain
name.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:58:13 +0100

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 07:04:13PM -0500,
 Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 34 lines which said:

> we already have a reserved list, so as a rule, future tld
> applications shouldn't use existing (also in the heady future) RR
> types,

I disagree. With ICANN's plans to seriously increase the number of TLD
and IETF's plans to make easier to get a RR type
(draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis), this will soon become intractable.

I want my ".aaaa" in the root, with only IPv6 name servers accepted
:-)

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:01:27 +1100

> guesses (badly, quite often) what is the QTYPE and what is the domain

	Well for the very few times one needs to look up a TLD with
	dig "mx." etc. works well.  Most of the time treating "mx" as
	a MX record will be correct.

	Mark

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:11:27 +0100

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 08:01:27PM +1100,
 Mark Andrews <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 25 lines which said:

>       Most of the time treating "mx" as a MX record will be correct.

Not when you happen to live in Veracruz or Oaxaca.

And I have teached dig in Madagascar and it is a real pain to explain
to people that you need to put a dot after "MG" but not after "FR"
(people may think that MX is a possible QTYPE but nobody remembers
MG).

---

From: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:34:01 +0000

> (people may think that MX is a possible QTYPE but nobody remembers

This is a dig problem and should not influence us. The fact that
 $ dig ANY mx
does not do what you might think it ought to (but instead warns
of an "extra type option"), but
 $ dig -t ANY mx
does rather illustrates that its command line parsing is suboptimal.

--
Alex

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:39:28 +0100

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:34:01AM +0000,
 Alex Bligh <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 23 lines which said:

> This is a dig problem and should not influence us. 

Exactly what I said: we should NOT prevent TLD from being named with
names identical to RR types. The fact that some tools have problems
with it should not influence us.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:25:37 +0000

> (people may think that MX is a possible QTYPE but nobody remembers

	not using or enforcing the dot is sloppy.
	and yes, we remember MG...

--bill