Subject: [Dbound] Doing what I shouldn't be doing (suggesting new text)

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:24:42 +0000

After taking a few days away from this, I went to read the github charter.
 To me it reads like a DNS work item.

I have two choices here:

1 Trim the current opening paragraph to this (I just cut off the last
half):

Various Internet protocols and applications require some mechanism for
determining whether two domain names are related. A popular example is
the need to determine whether example.com and foo.example.com, or even
example.net, are subject to the same administrative control. To humans,
the answer to this may be obvious.

2 Or, replace it with this (which tries to cover the same ground):

        Various Internet protocols and applications make administrative
judgements on domain names they use, such as performing an authorization
check.  Often times the judgement is applied to a domain name based on
knowing something about another domain name, such as assuming
foo.example.com is to be treated the same as example.com.  That use case
is simple and could be summed up as “check the rightmost labels” but a
slightly more complex use case could be to use the same judgements for
example.net and example.com.  Relying on what exists in the Domain Name
System (DNS) and using how it internally manages names has been tried
unsuccessfully, with the root cause of failure being that the
administrative judgements are based on protocol and application details
beyond the scope of the DNS system.

The reason for the suggestions are I see this as a hazard:

However, the Domain Name System (DNS), which is the service that handles
domain name queries, does not currently provide the ability to mark these
sorts of relationships.

That sounds like an invitation to do DNS work to solve that gap.

Option 1 removes the invitation by amputating it, option 2 removes is by
saying “past tries have failed."

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:04:27 -0500

> That sounds like an invitation to do DNS work to solve that gap.

I don't see it.  The point of that sentence is that people try to read
these properties from the DNS, and the information isn't there.

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:08:12 -0800

> 1 Trim the current opening paragraph to this (I just cut off the last
...
> 2 Or, replace it with this (which tries to cover the same ground):

Ed's concern about reader misunderstanding makes sense.

The shortened choice is clear, but not very helpful in understanding the
nature of the problem the wg wants to address.

The replacement text is clear and helpful.

IMO, the added verbiage is significantly helpful for readers who do not
already know about this work.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:08:25 -0800

> these properties from the DNS, and the information isn't there.

I think Ed's point is that one could interpret this to mean "...so we need
to add it", versus "...so we need to find another way."

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:09:25 +0000

Maybe the word “currently” is what I see as the invitation.  (When
something “currently” lacks a feature, the engineer in me wants to blindly
go build it.)  “Does not currently provide” could be replaced with “Does
not have” - a more permanent assessment.

On 12/1/14, 10:04, "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>Dbound mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:14:15 -0800

> not have” - a more permanent assessment.

Applied, in place of your earlier two suggestions.  A much simpler edit,
and avoids the additional problem of making later paragraphs fairly
redundant.

-MSK

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Dec 2014 23:45:32 -0000

>to add it", versus "...so we need to find another way."

Perhaps "so we may need to find another way."  We have some proposals
to put this stuff in the DNS, and we have some proposals to put it in
other places.

As I've said before, I don't think it's our job to attempt to prevent
every possible misreading of our charter.  We could say 
<BLINK>THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE DNS</BLINK>
and some people would still demand that we first define a new rrtype.

R's,
John