On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:16:32AM -0400,
Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote
a message of 65 lines which said:
> If we define DNS names as "domain names that are intended to be used
> with DNS resolution, either in the global DNS or in some other
> context", would that help?
This definition is fine, for me. I note that "DNS name" (unlike
"domain name") is not defined in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology so
either we add your proposed definition in the terminology draft or in
the .ALT draft.
> > separated by dots in the text form). (Speaking of that,
> > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology should be mentioned, not just the old
> > RFC 1034.)
>
> Good idea (though I don't know why 1034's age has anything to do
> with it).
The discussions over draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology showed clearly
that the terminology of RFC 1034 is often at odds with current
terminology. So, yes, age matters, when there is a terminology shift.
> We actually define "pseudo-TLD",
Speaking of which, according to this definition, when I make a typo
and type "hot.xxxx", and the root replies NXDOMAIN, ".xxxx" is a
pseudo-TLD ("A label that appears in a fully-qualified domain name in
the position of a TLD, but which is not registered in the global
DNS")?
> > Since this document does not ask for a delegation in the USG/ICANN
> > root, which is it mentioned?
>
> This is a good point. Will fix.
And, of course, I wanted to say "why is it mentioned?" but typed
instead "which is it mentioned?"
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
