On 21 Dec 2017, at 16:06, Richard Gibson wrote: > Two reasons why I presume edge direction to be away from the root:
> first, because it's consistent with the rest of the document in its current > form (for example, the very next sentence after my quoted text describes how > a fully qualified domain name "begins at the common root of the graph"), But, as you pointed out in an earlier message, this depends on which portions of the rest of the document you pick. Under "Domain name" and "Composition of names" the order described is away from the root, while under "presentation format", "wire format", and "display format", the opposite is the case. > and second, because parent-to-child directionality is inherent to the DNS for > delegations. That's an enticing analogy. I'm not sure whether it's compelling. > RFC 1034 seems to contemplate an undirected graph, so can happily use > towards-the-root for domain names and away-from-the-root for delegations. But > I don't think 7719bis has that luxury, because "domain name" should remain > valid even in a "naming system" without a single common root. I'ld be surprised, because of what I understood of how the development of 7719 was approached, to learn that 7719bis can be permitted to revise a foundational document such as 1034. I may be mistaken in this. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
