A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : DNS Terminology
Authors : Paul Hoffman
Andrew Sullivan
Greetings. We got a lot of good feedback near the beginning of the WG Last
Call, and wanted the WG to see the current state so we can get more comments.
As you can see from the diffs
(https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01), we
have made significant changes to "pu
Somewhere I saw "domaine" in the doc - can't find it now - and that
started me trying to mark this up. (I hadn't read the document in full
before, so this is a first review for me.)
On 4/29/15, 14:13, "internet-dra...@ietf.org"
wrote:
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet
First off - thanks for writing this. I personally *hate* writing
terminology sections in drafts; that someone is willing to write an
entire terminology draft, especially one on DNS fills me with awe...
Anyway, Section 3:
"Some of response codes that are defined in [RFC1035] have gotten
their ow
Thanks for the comments.
On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Somewhere I saw "domaine" in the doc - can't find it now - and that
> started me trying to mark this up. (I hadn't read the document in full
> before, so this is a first review for me.)
Found it. Fixed.
> #ccTLD -- A
On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> First off - thanks for writing this. I personally *hate* writing
> terminology sections in drafts; that someone is willing to write an
> entire terminology draft, especially one on DNS fills me with awe...
>
> Anyway, Section 3:
> "Some of r
Paul Hoffman writes:
> "Country" is a term of art in politics. There are definitions that most
> people agree to, at least when it suits them.
RFC 1591 purposely does not define what a country is. ISO 3166-1
contains a definition what constitutes a country.
jaap
___
On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>
> Paul Hoffman writes:
>
>> "Country" is a term of art in politics. There are definitions that most
>> people agree to, at least when it suits them.
>
> RFC 1591 purposely does not define what a country is. ISO 3166-1
> contains a definitio
Hi,
(no hats)
As the outcome of an offline discussion a couple of weeks ago, I'm suggesting a
modest addition to the DNS terminology draft.
Sec. 2, "Names," uses the word "label" in several definitions, but doesn't
define it. RFC 1034 does the same thing-- the definition of "domain name"
impo
On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> I'm suggesting a new definition in Sec. 2, as follows:
>
> "Label -- The portion of a domain name at each node in the tree making up a
> fully-qualified domain name"
Works for me. What do others think?
--Paul Hoffman
___
On 4/29/15, 16:02, "Paul Hoffman" wrote:
>
>I think "sTLD" is a term used in ICANN, not in the DNS, whereas gTLD has
>definitely slipped into DNS language.
>This confuses me, given the definition in RFC 2308. Are you saying that a
>NODATA response might have an RCODE that is not 0? If so, what ar
On 29 Apr 2015, at 21:36, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>>
>> Paul Hoffman writes:
>>
>>> "Country" is a term of art in politics. There are definitions that most
>>> people agree to, at least when it suits them.
>>
>> RFC 1591 purposely does not def
On Apr 29, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> The above responses give me a confused idea of what the guidelines of the
> draft is following.
Yep. We have some guidelines at the front of the document, and we generally try
to follow them. However, this is now an WG consensus document, not an
On 4/29/15 7:56 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
I'll start with an observation that does not directly relate to the draft
which does put me in an awkward position. The language used in the RFCs
is not exactly the language used in operations. Yes, most words are the
same but not all.
If the draft is
i'd like to think of it as a sequence of bits having having no infix
dots and having no semantics, e.g., directionality, arising externally
to itself.
On 4/29/15 2:44 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
Hi,
(no hats)
As the outcome of an offline discussion a couple of weeks ago, I'm suggesting a
modes
15 matches
Mail list logo
