Hi George!
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 20:34, George Michaelson <[g...@algebras.org](mailto:On
Thu, May 4, 2023 at 20:34, George Michaelson <<a href=)> wrote:
> When people talk about "lame" they're in a sentence with a subject
> (the DNS), and an object(ive) -But there isn't a single parse. Sorry,
> but the declarative "this is what it means" seems to me to be failing,
> hard.
I've heard very different and contradictory understandings of lots of words in
the DNS including domain, name, zone, resolver and address, Oh, and DNS. And
not just by individuals: sometimes throughout established and DNS-centric
organisations whose names you would definitely recognise. It doesn't seem to me
that defining those ambiguous terms is contentious.
In fact if there is a universal shared definition of any term then arguably it
doesn't need to have a written definition, because everybody already knows what
it means and uses it correctly. Isn't the existence ambiguity what makes a
definition useful?
If we avoid defining a term then we are surely ensuring ambiguity will always
exist, in which case we are (I guess) saying that we don't think the ambiguity
is important. But if the ambiguity is not important, what's the harm in
choosing one definition in favour of others?
Of course we could just invent a new phrase. Then we'd have two terms we
disagreed about for the same thing. Or are they different things? Yes and no?
Joe
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
