DNS Terminology
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-03-21
|
(System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis and RFC 9499, changed IESG state to RFC … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis and RFC 9499, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
|
2024-03-18
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2024-03-04
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2023-12-14
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2023-10-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2023-10-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2023-10-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2023-10-01
|
10 | Pascal Thubert | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Pascal Thubert. Sent review to list. |
2023-09-29
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Downref to RFC 6841 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-10 |
2023-09-29
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Downref to RFC 6781 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-10 |
2023-09-29
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Downref to RFC 1912 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-10 |
2023-09-26
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2023-09-26
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2023-09-26
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2023-09-26
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2023-09-26
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2023-09-26
|
10 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2023-09-26
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2023-09-26
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2023-09-26
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2023-09-26
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-09-25
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my Discuss point. |
2023-09-25
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Zaheduzzaman Sarker has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2023-09-25
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Warren Kumari (IESG state changed) |
2023-09-25
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2023-09-25
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2023-09-25
|
10 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-10.txt |
2023-09-25
|
10 | Paul Hoffman | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2023-09-25
|
10 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-21
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Paul Hoffman, Kazunori Fujiwara (IESG state changed) |
2023-09-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2023-09-21
|
09 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2023-09-20
|
09 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2023-09-20
|
09 | Suresh Krishnan | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2023-09-20
|
09 | Suresh Krishnan | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan. |
2023-09-20
|
09 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to Cullen Jennings for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/4i-YjH8dLge_RddBsrVPcyy-C7w/. |
2023-09-20
|
09 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini |
2023-09-20
|
09 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for working on this documentation. I have one point that I would like to discuss to clarify the definition understanding, I hope … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for working on this documentation. I have one point that I would like to discuss to clarify the definition understanding, I hope addressing this would improve this document. It defines- Full resolver: This term is used in [RFC1035], but it is not defined there. RFC 1123 defines a "full-service resolver" that may or may not be what was intended by "full resolver" in [RFC1035]. This term is not properly defined in any RFC. While section 6 starts with - "This section defines the terms used for the systems that act as DNS clients, DNS servers, or both. ". It does not really define "Full resolver". I am not sure what I am supposed to do with the definition (more like description) provided here. This should be clarified. what was the consideration here? |
2023-09-20
|
09 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] In the spirit of defining the "global DNS" and "private DNS", the security section should perhaps remove the use of "the DNS" and … [Ballot comment] In the spirit of defining the "global DNS" and "private DNS", the security section should perhaps remove the use of "the DNS" and use "global DNS" and "private DNS" instead. A very minor comment. |
2023-09-20
|
09 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2023-09-19
|
09 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2023-09-19
|
09 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2023-09-19
|
09 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Thanks for spending the time to keep this up to date. |
2023-09-19
|
09 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2023-09-18
|
09 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2023-09-18
|
09 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] Thanks to the DNSOP WG for keeping this document up to date with the latest developments and language shifts in the operational communities. |
2023-09-18
|
09 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2023-09-16
|
09 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously discouraged publishing "living documents" like this one in the RFC series. … [Ballot comment] I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously discouraged publishing "living documents" like this one in the RFC series. So why aren't we doing this as a wiki page or something? Not a hill I care to die on, but I'd like to understand. |
2023-09-16
|
09 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2023-09-15
|
09 | Vijay Gurbani | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani. Sent review to list. |
2023-09-15
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Magnus Nystrom for the SECDIR review. Thank you to the authors and WG for performing upkeep on DNS terminology. |
2023-09-15
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2023-09-15
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09 Thank you for the work put into this document: it is really important to have … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09 Thank you for the work put into this document: it is really important to have a common vocabulary and specific terms. I have appreciated the removal of 'old but confusing' terms such as lame delegation and bailiwick (the latter being very obscure for non-English readers). My review of the diff to RFC 8499 found no issues. Special thanks to Benno Overeinder for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. Please note that Suresh Krishnan is the Internet directorate reviewer and you may want to consider this int-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait for it though): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/reviewrequest/18093/ Regards, -éric |
2023-09-15
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2023-09-11
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2023-09-07
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom. |
2023-09-06
|
09 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. Sent review to list. |
2023-09-06
|
09 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2023-09-05
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | Closed request for Telechat review by IOTDIR with state 'Withdrawn': Wrong click... sorry |
2023-09-05
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2023-09-05
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by IOTDIR |
2023-09-05
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-09-21 |
2023-09-05
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Ballot has been issued |
2023-09-05
|
09 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2023-09-05
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Created "Approve" ballot |
2023-09-05
|
09 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2023-09-05
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2023-09-03
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Cullen Jennings. Sent review to list. |
2023-08-31
|
09 | Juan-Carlos Zúñiga | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Pascal Thubert |
2023-08-31
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2023-08-30
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2023-08-30
|
09 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2023-08-28
|
09 | James Gannon | Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: James Gannon. Sent review to list. |
2023-08-26
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2023-08-25
|
09 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Cullen Jennings |
2023-08-24
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Jim Reid | Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to James Gannon |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-09-05): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: benno@NLnetLabs.nl, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-09-05): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: benno@NLnetLabs.nl, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (DNS Terminology) to Best Current Practice The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'DNS Terminology' as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-09-05. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology used by implementers and developers of DNS protocols, and by operators of DNS systems, has changed in the decades since the DNS was first defined. This document gives current definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS in a single document. This document updates RFC 2308 by clarifying the definitions of "forwarder" and "QNAME". It obsoletes RFC 8499 by adding multiple terms and clarifications. Comprehensive lists of changed and new definitions can be found in Appendicies A and B. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc882: Domain names: Concepts and facilities (Unknown - Legacy stream) rfc1912: Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors (Informational - Legacy stream) rfc1996: A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc2136: Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc2308: Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc4033: DNS Security Introduction and Requirements (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc4034: Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc4035: Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc4592: The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name System (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc5155: DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc5936: DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc6561: Recommendations for the Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc6781: DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2 (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc6840: Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC) (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc6841: A Framework for DNSSEC Policies and DNSSEC Practice Statements (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc7344: Automating DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc7719: DNS Terminology (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc8310: Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and DNS over DTLS (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) rfc9250: DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional: DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Responses (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Last call was requested |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was generated |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09.txt |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Paul Hoffman | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2023-08-22
|
09 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-21
|
08 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was changed |
2023-08-21
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to Warren Kumari (IESG state changed) |
2023-08-21
|
08 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2023-08-14
|
08 | Benno Overeinder | (1) Draft RFC8499bis intended status is BCP, which is correct. The document updates RFC8499, which is also a BCP. (2) Technical Summary: … (1) Draft RFC8499bis intended status is BCP, which is correct. The document updates RFC8499, which is also a BCP. (2) Technical Summary: This document updates RFC8499, “DNS Terminology”, which defines a comprehensive collection of DNS-related terms grouped by topic. While some of the terms had been previously defined in earlier RFCs, others had been loosely defined or not defined at all. Most of the definitions in 8499 reflect the commonly agreed upon meaning within the DNS community, which includes protocol developers and operators. However, there are some definitions that diverge from those found in earlier RFCs, and those differences are noted. This document updates a few such terms, importing the rest of 8499 unaltered. Working Group Summary: The majority of the terminology definitions in 8499 were already in agreement with current usage. However, a few terms required additional discussion, primarily carried out through the mailing list. In the case of two interrelated terms, "bailiwick" and "glue," the working group identified the need for further refinement and held extensive discussion and an interim meeting to achieve consensus on their definitions. Another term that demanded extended deliberation was "lame delegation." Its definition and interpretation had evolved over time, and the working group reached consensus that the term no longer effectively described certain operational behaviours of DNS name servers. Following an interim meeting on this topic, it was collectively decided to label the term "lame delegation" as historic. On the whole, the working group is in broad agreement regarding the terminology definitions outlined in the document. Further updates to 8499 may get consensus support for changes or additions in the future; this document provides the updates we have consensus on now. Document Quality: The document has seen several reviews during its lifetime. As a -bis document, it has proven its worth to both DNS software developers and operators. However, an update became necessary due to the introduction of new encrypted DNS transport protocols and a need to provide clearer definitions for certain terms that may not be well understood or have evolved over time. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Benno Overeinder Responsible Area Director: Warren Kumari (3) The document shepherd reviewed the document in detail, as well as conducted basic editorial checks such as spelling (and grammar as far as a non-native speaker can do). The shepherd believes that the document is ready for publication. (4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (5) There is no need for a broader review. (6) There are no concerns from the document shepherd. (7) No IPR disclosures. (8) There is no IPR. (9) With enough discussion on the mailing list and two interim meetings to resolve differences of opinion, and finally two WGLCs on the mailing list, Shepherd feels there is broad consensus behind this document. Suggestions to add new terms to replace the two now historic terms have been deferred to new drafts defining the new terminology, and to which a future new bis document may refer. (10) There have been no appeals. (11) The shepherd reviewed the idnits and the outstanding issues are warnings and errors that come from parts of the text that have not been changed from the original RFC8499 document. These were accepted during the publication of the earlier version of this document and for the warnings and errors given we have decided that all issues have already been covered in the first RFC publication. (12) No formal review is required. (13) All references have been identified as normative or informative. (14) All normative references are in clear state. (15) There are downward normative references reported by idnits. See further comments to (11), these were accepted in the original RFC8499 document and we have decided not to change it. (16) This document will update RFC2308 and obsolete RFC8499, and it is mentioned in the abstract. (17) This document has no IANA actions. (18) No new IANA registries. (19) No Automated checks needed. (20) No YANG. |
2023-08-14
|
08 | Benno Overeinder | Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari |
2023-08-14
|
08 | Benno Overeinder | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-08-14
|
08 | Benno Overeinder | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-08-14
|
08 | Benno Overeinder | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-08-14
|
08 | Benno Overeinder | (1) Draft RFC8499bis intended status is BCP, which is correct. The document updates RFC8499, which is also a BCP. (2) Technical Summary: … (1) Draft RFC8499bis intended status is BCP, which is correct. The document updates RFC8499, which is also a BCP. (2) Technical Summary: This document updates RFC8499, “DNS Terminology”, which defines a comprehensive collection of DNS-related terms grouped by topic. While some of the terms had been previously defined in earlier RFCs, others had been loosely defined or not defined at all. Most of the definitions in 8499 reflect the commonly agreed upon meaning within the DNS community, which includes protocol developers and operators. However, there are some definitions that diverge from those found in earlier RFCs, and those differences are noted. This document updates a few such terms, importing the rest of 8499 unaltered. Working Group Summary: The majority of the terminology definitions in 8499 were already in agreement with current usage. However, a few terms required additional discussion, primarily carried out through the mailing list. In the case of two interrelated terms, "bailiwick" and "glue," the working group identified the need for further refinement and held extensive discussion and an interim meeting to achieve consensus on their definitions. Another term that demanded extended deliberation was "lame delegation." Its definition and interpretation had evolved over time, and the working group reached consensus that the term no longer effectively described certain operational behaviours of DNS name servers. Following an interim meeting on this topic, it was collectively decided to label the term "lame delegation" as historic. On the whole, the working group is in broad agreement regarding the terminology definitions outlined in the document. Further updates to 8499 may get consensus support for changes or additions in the future; this document provides the updates we have consensus on now. Document Quality: The document has seen several reviews during its lifetime. As a -bis document, it has proven its worth to both DNS software developers and operators. However, an update became necessary due to the introduction of new encrypted DNS transport protocols and a need to provide clearer definitions for certain terms that may not be well understood or have evolved over time. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Benno Overeinder Responsible Area Director: Warren Kumari (3) The document shepherd reviewed the document in detail, as well as conducted basic editorial checks such as spelling (and grammar as far as a non-native speaker can do). The shepherd believes that the document is ready for publication. (4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (5) There is no need for a broader review. (6) There are no concerns from the document shepherd. (7) No IPR disclosures. (8) There is no IPR. (9) With enough discussion on the mailing list and two interim meetings to resolve differences of opinion, and finally two WGLCs on the mailing list, Shepherd feels there is broad consensus behind this document. Suggestions to add new terms to replace the two now historic terms have been deferred to new drafts defining the new terminology, and to which a future new bis document may refer. (10) There have been no appeals. (11) The shepherd reviewed the idnits and the outstanding issues are warnings and errors that come from parts of the text that have not been changed from the original RFC8499 document. These were accepted during the publication of the earlier version of this document and for the warnings and errors given we have decided that all issues have already been covered in the first RFC publication. (12) No formal review is required. (13) All references have been identified as normative or informative. (14) All normative references are in clear state. (15) There are downward normative references reported by idnits. See further comments to (11), these were accepted in the original RFC8499 document and we have decided not to change it. (16) This document will update RFC2308 and obsolete RFC8499, and it is mentioned in the abstract. (17) This document has no IANA actions. (18) No new IANA registries. (19) No Automated checks needed. (20) No YANG. |
2023-08-14
|
08 | Benno Overeinder | (1) Draft RFC8499bis intended status is BCP, which is correct. The document updates RFC8499, which is also a BCP. (2) Technical Summary: … (1) Draft RFC8499bis intended status is BCP, which is correct. The document updates RFC8499, which is also a BCP. (2) Technical Summary: This document updates RFC8499, “DNS Terminology”, which defines a comprehensive collection of DNS-related terms grouped by topic. While some of the terms had been previously defined in earlier RFCs, others had been loosely defined or not defined at all. Most of the definitions in 8499 reflect the commonly agreed upon meaning within the DNS community, which includes protocol developers and operators. However, there are some definitions that diverge from those found in earlier RFCs, and those differences are noted. This document updates a few such terms, importing the rest of 8499 unaltered. Working Group Summary: The majority of the terminology definitions in 8499 were already in agreement with current usage. However, a few terms required additional discussion, primarily carried out through the mailing list. In the case of two interrelated terms, "bailiwick" and "glue," the working group identified the need for further refinement and held extensive discussion and an interim meeting to achieve consensus on their definitions. Another term that demanded extended deliberation was "lame delegation." Its definition and interpretation had evolved over time, and the working group reached consensus that the term no longer effectively described certain operational behaviours of DNS name servers. Following an interim meeting on this topic, it was collectively decided to label the term "lame delegation" as historic. On the whole, the working group is in broad agreement regarding the terminology definitions outlined in the document. Further updates to 8499 may get consensus support for changes or additions in the future; this document provides the updates we have consensus on now. Document Quality: The document has seen several reviews during its lifetime. As a -bis document, it has proven its worth to both DNS software developers and operators. However, an update became necessary due to the introduction of new encrypted DNS transport protocols and a need to provide clearer definitions for certain terms that may not be well understood or have evolved over time. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Benno Overeinder Responsible Area Director: Warren Kumari (3) The document shepherd reviewed the document in detail, as well as conducted basic editorial checks such as spelling (and grammar as far as a non-native speaker can do). The shepherd believes that the document is ready for publication. (4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (5) There is no need for a broader review. (6) There are no concerns from the document shepherd. (7) No IPR disclosures. (8) There is no IPR. (9) With enough discussion on the mailing list and two interim meetings to resolve differences of opinion, and finally two WGLCs on the mailing list, Shepherd feels there is broad consensus behind this document. Suggestions to add new terms to replace the two now historic terms have been deferred to new drafts defining the new terminology, and to which a future new bis document may refer. (10) There have been no appeals. (11) The shepherd reviewed the idnits and the outstanding issues are warnings and errors that come from parts of the text that have not been changed from the original RFC8499 document. These were accepted during the publication of the earlier version of this document and for the warnings and errors given we have decided that all issues have already been covered in the first RFC publication. (12) No formal review is required. (13) All references have been identified as normative or informative. (14) All normative references are in clear state. (15) There are downward normative references reported by idnits. See further comments to (11), these were accepted in the original RFC8499 document and we have decided not to change it. (16) This document will update RFC2308 and obsolete RFC8499, and it is mentioned in the abstract. (17) This document has no IANA actions. (18) No new IANA registries. (19) No Automated checks needed. (20) No YANG. |
2023-07-26
|
08 | Benno Overeinder | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2023-07-04
|
08 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-08.txt |
2023-07-04
|
08 | Paul Hoffman | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2023-07-04
|
08 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-20
|
07 | Benno Overeinder | Added to session: interim-2023-dnsop-01 |
2023-05-24
|
07 | Benno Overeinder | Planned an interim meeting to discuss definition of the term "lame delegation". |
2023-05-24
|
07 | Benno Overeinder | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-04-15
|
07 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-07.txt |
2023-04-15
|
07 | Paul Hoffman | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2023-04-15
|
07 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-10
|
06 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-06.txt |
2023-03-10
|
06 | Paul Hoffman | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2023-03-10
|
06 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-10
|
05 | Benno Overeinder | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2023-02-17
|
05 | Benno Overeinder | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-01-20
|
05 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05.txt |
2023-01-20
|
05 | Paul Hoffman | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2023-01-20
|
05 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2022-12-27
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | This document now replaces draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-ter instead of None |
2022-12-21
|
04 | Benno Overeinder | Notification list changed to benno@NLnetLabs.nl because the document shepherd was set |
2022-12-21
|
04 | Benno Overeinder | Document shepherd changed to Benno Overeinder |
2022-09-12
|
04 | Benno Overeinder | Added to session: interim-2022-dnsop-02 |
2022-07-27
|
04 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-04.txt |
2022-07-27
|
04 | Paul Hoffman | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2022-07-27
|
04 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-01
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-12-10
|
03 | Benno Overeinder | Added to session: interim-2021-dnsop-03 |
2021-09-28
|
03 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-03.txt |
2021-09-28
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2021-09-28
|
03 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2021-06-24
|
02 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-02.txt |
2021-06-24
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2021-06-24
|
02 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2021-05-24
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-11-20
|
01 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-01.txt |
2020-11-20
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2020-11-20
|
01 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-19
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2020-11-19
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None |
2020-11-17
|
00 | Paul Hoffman | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-00.txt |
2020-11-17
|
00 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) |
2020-11-17
|
00 | Paul Hoffman | Uploaded new revision |