Subject: [lamps] CAA: Title case for Defined Terms?

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 17:01:12 -0800

Rob Stradling pointed out something on 
https://github.com/jsha/caa-simplification/pull/5:

In the Defined Terms section, we use title case, but we don't 
consistently use title case when referring to them. For instance we 
define "Issuer", "Property" and "Wildcard Domain Name", but in the text 
refer to "issuer", "property", and "wildcard domain name".

What's the best practice on whether to use title case when referring to 
defined terms in the body of an RFC?

---

From: Tim Hollebeek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:58:28 +0000

Title Case Should Be Used Consistently For Defined Terms.  This Makes It
Clear That It Is A Defined Term.

Rob Stradling is a Smart Person and if we aren't doing that consistently,
we MUST Fix That.

-Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spasm <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Jacob Hoffman-
> Andrews
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 8:01 PM
> To: SPASM <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [lamps] CAA: Title case for Defined Terms?
> 
> In the Defined Terms section, we use title case, but we don't consistently
use
> title case when referring to them. For instance we define "Issuer",
"Property"
> and "Wildcard Domain Name", but in the text refer to "issuer", "property",
> and "wildcard domain name".
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

---

From: Rob Stradling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:10:59 +0000

On 25/01/2019 01:58, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
> Rob Stradling is a Smart Person

Actually, I tend to dress down.  It's not often that you'll find me in a 
suit and tie.  Oh, hang on..."Smart Person" must be a Defined Term, so 
I'll just double-check the definition...ahhh, so you were complimenting 
my intelligence rather than my dress sense.  That's very kind.  ;-)

> and if we aren't doing that consistently,
> we MUST Fix That.
> 
> -Tim
> 

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
Sectigo Limited

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:41:38 -0800

Here's a PR adding Title Case for all Defined Terms: 
https://github.com/jsha/caa-simplification/pull/8.

I'm also going to work on a PR to use "Wildcard Name" instead of 
"Wildcard Domain Name" because it's confusing that Wildcard Domain Name 
is not a Domain Name.

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:46:39 -0800

And here's the one for "Wildcard Name": 
https://github.com/jsha/caa-simplification/pull/9

---

From: Tim Hollebeek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 22:49:42 +0000

While I appreciate this argument, is it important enough to justify a 
divergence of terminology with the Baseline Requirements?

-Tim

> I'm also going to work on a PR to use "Wildcard Name" instead of "Wildcard
> Domain Name" because it's confusing that Wildcard Domain Name is not a
> Domain Name.

---

From: Ryan Sleevi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:36:46 -0500

RFC 8449 / BCP 219, in the discussion of Domain Names, notes that IETF
documents have been inconsistent in the application of the term, such that
the use of a wildcard can be valid in the wireform of a domain, but not
conform with the rules for hostnames or presentational syntax.

I say this because, on the balance, I don’t have strong feelings for or
against this change. It may be that referencing BCP 219 provides a more
stable set of definitions here, if necessary, than the BRs.

---

From: Tim Hollebeek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:14:51 +0000

Yup, thanks for pointing out BCP 219.  While “Wildcard Domain Name” may not be an ideal term, it does seem to be an established one.

-Tim

From: Ryan Sleevi <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 4:37 PM
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Cc: Rob Stradling <[email-masked]>; SPASM <[email-masked]>; Tim Hollebeek <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lamps] CAA: Title case for Defined Terms?

RFC 8449 / BCP 219, in the discussion of Domain Names, notes that IETF documents have been inconsistent in the application of the term, such that the use of a wildcard can be valid in the wireform of a domain, but not conform with the rules for hostnames or presentational syntax.

I say this because, on the balance, I don’t have strong feelings for or against this change. It may be that referencing BCP 219 provides a more stable set of definitions here, if necessary, than the BRs.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:47 PM Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:

And here's the one for "Wildcard Name": 
https://github.com/jsha/caa-simplification/pull/9 <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Qd1dk7d9dZiiRMcDpS1bR87Vc?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjsha%2Fcaa-simplification%2Fpull%2F9> 

_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3V5KrNaDPJLKL85s2ESwvo57Vc?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspasm>

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:12:46 -0800

That makes a lot of sense, thanks. I'll close PR 9 and leave it as 
"Wildcard Domain Name".