On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 07:30:27AM -0800, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote a message of 16 lines which said:
> Some of the new terms added to the terminology-bis draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/)since > RFC 7719 can expose what some (but not all) people perceive as lack > of clarity in RFC 1034/1035. This week, we hope you will look at the > definition in the draft for "QNAME". As I mentioned in this errata <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4983>, I think RFC 2308 was wrong in redefining QNAME. My personal preference would be to change the second paragraph to "RFC 2308 proposed another definition, different from the original one. Since it is actually a different concept, it would be better to find another name for it. Here, QNAME retains the original definition of RFC 1034." Otherwise, if the WG prefers, I can live with the current text :-( _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
