Jay, On 2013-02-22, at 14:20, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote:
>> Actually, I think the problem is the confusion between a label string >> terminated in a dot (to indicate that no search domain should be >> appended) and a label string not so-terminated (which might mean that >> a search domain is attempted, depending on local configuration). > > In fact, Joe, I think it's distinguishing your second case from "a label > string which is intended to reference a rooted FQDN, but the user did not > specify the trailing dot -- and yet still does not want a search path > applied"... That's the same as my second case. "rooted FQDN" is also not well-defined outside this thread. I don't think just adopting the terminology unilaterally is going to make it so. >> The terminology "root zone" or "root domain" to explain the trailing >> dot is misleading and unhelpful, I find. > > No, what's *really* unhelpful and misleading is the people who say that > it is the *dot* which specifies the name of the root, The dot doesn't specify the name of the root. That's why it's confusing. > rather than the > null labelstring which *follows* that dot (which is what it actually > is, and I'll save everyone's stomach linings by not saying the words > "alternate root" here. :-) There is no null label string following the dot in a fully-qualified domain name, in this context. You're confusing the presentation of domain names with wire-format encoding of domain names. Joe
