[dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top level domain"
Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Sat, 11 September 2010 00:54 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A4E3A6940; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M1sSkMot+iDP; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B702C3A6948; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1OuEGW-0001E6-69 for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:48:24 +0000
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com ([72.52.113.17]) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dhc2@dcrocker.net>) id 1OuEGR-0001Di-47 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:48:19 +0000
Received: from [10.71.1.17] (adsl-75-55-201-218.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [75.55.201.218]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8B0m9Og027122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:48:17 -0700
Message-ID: <4C8AD1C5.1050601@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:48:05 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top level domain"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
Folks, I'm trying to resolve an erratum, on RFC 2142, MAILBOX NAMES FOR COMMON SERVICES, ROLES AND FUNCTIONS". The current focus is a narrow matter of nomenclature. Broader issues about a full revision effort for the document are worthy, but outside of the current scope. RFC 2142 uses the phrase "organization's top level domain". This refers to the string that is delegated to the organization and provides the root of any sub-tree to the DNS that they create. Around the world and around the DNS, this 'root' will have two or more fields, such as bbiw.net or ucl.ac.uk. (And with recent TLD rule changes, presumably this now is /one/ or more fields...) So it would refer to ietf.org, rather than tools.ietf.org or www.ietf.org, and ucl.ac.uk, rather than www.ucl.ac.uk or bartlett.ucl.ac.uk, for example. The construct of a domain name that an organization registers, and for which it receives a delegation, is important. Yet there appears to be no common term for it. RFC 2142 was written quite awhile ago. It uses a term that is formally reasonable, but which has become potentially confusing. The reference to "top level" for a domain name, is now so universally taken to mean a TLD, that it is reasonable to assume that the "organizational" qualifier is not sufficient to move the reader away from the meaning they are likely to expect. So the question is what other term to use? I raised this question to the IETF applications discussion list and we wandered over various choices. Tony Finch came up with one that I'd like to declare the winner, unless you folks come up with something better: organization's principal domain name Comments? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top lev… Kevin Darcy
- [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top level d… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top lev… Brian Dickson
- Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top lev… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top lev… Florian Weimer
- Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top lev… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top lev… Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top lev… Florian Weimer
- Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top lev… Andrew Sullivan