Subject: [dnsext] Collective name for Answer, Authority, and Additional Sections?

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:11:22 -0800

The Answer, Authority, and Additional Sections in a DNS packet all  
hold resource records in the same format, which makes it convenient  
to refer to them collectively some times, and it's starting to feel  
cumbersome to keep writing the phrase, "Answer, Authority, and  
Additional Sections," over and over.

Is there any established collective name for these three sections?

I'm leaning towards using the term "Resource Record Sections" (as  
opposed to the one other section, the "Question Section", which has a  
different format), but if there's already a term established, I'd  
prefer to use that instead of inventing my own.

Any suggestions?

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
* Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
* Internet Architecture Board
* www.stuartcheshire.org

---

From: Matthew Dempsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:26:23 -0800

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I'm leaning towards using the term "Resource Record Sections" (as opposed to
> the one other section, the "Question Section", which has a different
> format), but if there's already a term established, I'd prefer to use that
> instead of inventing my own.

I like "Resource Record Sections," and I'm pretty sure I've used the
same term myself.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:28:40 +0000

UPDATE names the sections differently, and uses resource record format
to hold things that are not resource records.  so if you want to call 
them collectively "the resource record sections" you should probably
say "the query message resource record sections" which begins to be
even more unwieldy than "the answer, authority, and additional sections".

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:45:34 +0100

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:28:40PM +0000,
 Paul Vixie <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 5 lines which said:

> UPDATE names the sections differently, 

Same problem with EDNS which uses an Additional Section which is not
really a RR Section.

---

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:33:58 -0800

> even more unwieldy than "the answer, authority, and additional  

Indeed. However, this is for draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns, so  
the issue of DNS Update does not apply in the context of that document.

There are a bunch of places in draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns  
that refer to "the Answer Section" of response packets where I now  
realize it should say, "Answer, Authority, and Additional Sections."  
Hence the desire to have a less cumbersome phrase.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:29:52 -0500

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 01:33:58PM -0800, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> Indeed. However, this is for draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns, so the 
> issue of DNS Update does not apply in the context of that document.

Eeeek!  Please, don't introduce a general-purpose term that isn't
actually general-purpose.  It's sure to cause more confusion
particularly when it leaks out of our little community into, say,
layer 9.  Which we all know never happens.

I don't like either of these suggestions, but for grins: what about
"response sections", and define it precisely?

Alternatively, what about inventing some word like "aaasections", or
something much more elegant, and defining that precisely?

I do think a term for this would be really nice.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.