Section 4.1.2 of the tldr document actually says almost exactly what you said in your four-pronged strategy, but without the pejorative bit. However, it only talks about this in the case of special-use names, not in the case of names generally. I certainly generally agree with the taxonomy you're proposing, although I could do without the pejorative bit, and I think it needs to mention RFC 6303-style names, which I think you left out. Whether this taxonomy belongs in the document is certainly a valid question. The taxonomy that is _in_ the document could fairly easily be adapted to say what you said, and I would support doing that.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:58 PM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > ... and I have just posted a new version with the term Domain Names - >> I (and I think Ted) prefer Internet Names, but our preferences are not >> important, we want to do whatever the WG wants. >> > > Personally, I'm more concerned with getting the issues identified, and > then we can decide what to call them. Anyone else like my four pronged > strategy? > > Regards, > John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > _______________________________________________ > 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
