The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'DNS Terminology'
as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comme
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> Indeed in a non-public network, I'm free to provision a
> ".1" TLD, and even create hosts as sub-domains of this name:
This would break a (non-normative) promise in RFC 1123
However, a valid host name can never
have the dot
> On Aug 13, 2018, at 6:26 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> the string 128.0.0.1, is a domain name
Yes, it is the presentation form of the domain name whose
list of labels is: "128", "0", "0", "1". There is of course
no TLD named "1", so this domain is not registered, and it
would also not be a us
IESG and others,
Unfortunately and due to some other priorities, I have not been
able to do a comprehensive review of this document. The
following is based on reading through and trying to get an
understanding of this rather long document and its many
definitions, some of which are, as the docume
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'DNS Terminology'
as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comme
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document:
- 'DNS Terminology'
as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive commen
