Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > 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 :-(
I agree with Stephane. The STD 13 definition of QNAME is extremely clear while the RFC 2308 re-definition seems rare enough that it tends to occur mainly in discussions about how to define QNAME :-\ -- Robert Edmonds _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
