Monday, September 26, 2022< ^ >
Benno Overeinder has set the subject to: DNSOP interim-2021-dnsop-03
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[15:01:54] <zulipbot> (Jim Reid) Is anyone speaking or is my audio bust?
[15:02:38] <zulipbot> (Eliot Lear) I can hear you
[15:02:51] <zulipbot> (Sean Turner) I can hear.
[15:02:52] <zulipbot> (Warren Kumari) I can hear you
[15:03:06] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) I'll be taking notes today
[15:06:51] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) But primary today is putting together wording on baliwick
[15:07:36] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-06 uses "in-domain" and "sibling", However, it does not define these words and does  not refer RFC8499...
[15:08:11] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) Correct - what should come out of this discussion is terminology that the glue-is-not-optional draft will use.
[15:14:21] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) My opinion is that one goal of the terminology doc was to create current definitions
[15:15:06] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) but we want to hear from y'all
[15:15:48] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) I copied/pasted the 8499 text at the end of the HedgeDoc
[15:16:01] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) "in-bailiwick" is often used in non-IETF documents.
[15:16:01] <zulipbot> (Warren Kumari) "current definitions" + a note that the definition has changed over time so that people reading historic documents are not confused? Or jsut "this is what it means, be told" ?
[15:17:16] <zulipbot> (Wes Hardaker) it exists in way too many docs and logs to not define it
[15:17:29] <zulipbot> (PE) so you mean definition as more histrorical context than current best use of term?
[15:18:08] <zulipbot> (Warren Kumari) @PE : Yah, kinda. "I jsut read a document with this term, but had *no* idea what it means" help...
[15:20:37] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) broken up on my end
[15:20:53] <zulipbot> (Warren Kumari) Not just at Benos emd. Audio dropped out for me too
[15:21:06] <zulipbot> (John Levine) Yes, and don not try to define it now
[15:21:20] <zulipbot> (Roy Arends) audio dropped here too
[15:21:33] <zulipbot> (John Levine) Sorry bad ipad audio
[15:21:46] <zulipbot> (John Levine) Only as a historical use
[15:23:04] <zulipbot> (Suzanne Woolf) IMO it's okay to admit the term is widely used but ambiguous.
[15:25:00] <zulipbot> (Paul Hoffman) I like "historical term"
[15:25:13] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) agreed
[15:25:26] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) yes
[15:26:55] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) For "in-domain" and "sibling", there was no clear definition of terminology before RFC 7719, but I thought it was necessary, so I borrowed terminology from Peter Koch's draft.
[15:27:47] <zulipbot> (Jim Reid) @ Wes, I think it's impractical to come up with definitions for how that term as been used in all those non-IETF docs. IMO a "we chose not do that" is the right way forward.
[15:29:16] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) "Pull the formal definition of baliwick and write a historical definition"
[15:29:31] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) I think the terms *bailiwick, in-domain, sibling are necessary for glue is not optional draft.
[15:29:57] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) I do agree
[15:32:03] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) no audio, I'll use chat
[15:32:16] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) is this slide really about use of glue?
[15:32:29] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) rather than use of in-bailiwick?
[15:32:29] <zulipbot> (Warren Kumari) I don't really care -- for my use case, I'm assuming people can solve their issue with:
[15:32:42] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) ok, thanks
[15:33:09] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) yes I think that would be best
[15:33:26] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) I'd rather not define the terms in the glue is not optional doc
[15:33:47] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) agreed
[15:35:11] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) strict definition or more ambigious historical?
[15:36:12] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) sorry still no audio for me
[15:39:15] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) (in-domain glue is necessary, sibling glue is optional, out-of-bailiwick glue is unnecessary)
[15:39:55] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) Thank You Kazunori !
[15:40:40] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) (out-of-bailiwick glue SHOULD be ignored, sorry)
[15:41:34] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) I'm happy of not updating 2181
[15:42:33] <zulipbot> (John Levine) Agree with Paul, most useful to describe fuzzy existing practice
[15:42:46] <zulipbot> (John Levine) then I hope say this is the preferred meaning
[15:43:26] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) RFC 2181 5.4.1 Ranking Data seems to target older nameserver implementations that merge all the data.
[15:48:55] <zulipbot> (Tim Wicinski) My feeling is in the future something like SVCB may become glue, we're not there yet
[15:52:22] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) Is the EXCHANGE A/AAAA that comes with the MX RR  glue ?
[15:52:51] <zulipbot> (John Levine) Not as I've ever understood it
[15:54:03] <zulipbot> (Duane Wessels) @kazunori I'd say no because those could be done as a separate query
[15:54:29] <zulipbot> (John Levine) we had a big fight about sibling glue
[15:54:42] <zulipbot> (John Levine) since it only works sometimes
[15:56:54] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) in-domain, sibling, out-of-bailiwick are exclusive.
[15:57:07] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) in-bailiwick = in-domain + sibling
[15:58:57] <zulipbot> (Warren Kumari) I dont.
[15:59:10] <zulipbot> (Paul Hoffman) Please: no
[15:59:10] <zulipbot> (Peter Thomassen) I'll have to leave
[15:59:23] <zulipbot> (Paul Hoffman) It's not a short conversation
[15:59:23] <zulipbot> (Eliot Lear) ^^^
[15:59:57] <zulipbot> (Sean Turner) until next time
[16:00:10] <zulipbot> (Eliot Lear) thanks chairs
[16:00:23] <zulipbot> (Kazunori Fujiwara) Thank you.
[16:00:36] <zulipbot> (Suzanne Woolf) Thanks all, this was a good session!
[22:56:13] zulipbot joins the room
[23:01:27] Half-Shot joins the room
[23:01:27] sftcd joins the room
[23:01:27] zyxbac joins the room
[23:01:27] halfshot joins the room
[23:01:27] cjsu joins the room
[23:01:27] Jan Včelák joins the room
[23:01:27] weiler joins the room