again, this is where the document tries to cover terminology for both the DNS protocol and the DNS policy/operations (as seen through the lens of today). I don’t see any reason to define anything other than TLD.
manning bmann...@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 1May2015Friday, at 13:25, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca> wrote: > >> Le 2015-05-01 à 15:27, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> a écrit : >> >> On May 1, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca> wrote: >>>>> From the point of view of the DNS, there is no difference between a >>>> ccTLD and a gTLD. This distinction is relevant only for policies. >>> >>> right. I completly agree and I was going to write almost the same thing. >>> >>> suggest to remove ccTLD/gTLD and stick with TLD. >> >> Just to be clear: you want to remove terms that are commonly used in talking >> about the DNS from the terminology draft? I am hesitant to do this, given >> that they appear in DNS-related RFCs, but if the WG wants to remove them >> instead of defining them in a way that gets consensus, we can do that. > > I understand the point. I’m saying that defining ccTLD/gTLD does not really > bring anything and has Stéphane wrote, is on the policy side. If we want to > be exhaustive in defining all keywords and terms, I would suggest then: > > ccTLD: a TLD > gTLD: a TLD > TLD: the more exhaustive version… > > that way, we can achieve the goal of being « exhaustive » while not entering > into various policies and exceptions that is a rathole. > > Marc. > > >> >> --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
