Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11.txt> (DNS Terminology) to Best Current Practice

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Mon, 13 August 2018 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C26130EEE; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PtVi41HF5JFu; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1D14130E5D; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.71.22.159] (unknown [38.86.167.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A07D79199; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 19:04:28 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <7C7531F385095225A8D60CE1@PSB>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 19:03:32 -0400
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Reply-To: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <B5A437EE-149A-432F-9308-2EEB56004F55@dukhovni.org>
References: <153298445658.8167.4045103372772856058.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7C7531F385095225A8D60CE1@PSB>
To: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ajMp5td0J2CYGexvuwwz43oDhjY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11.txt> (DNS Terminology) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 23:04:33 -0000

> On Aug 13, 2018, at 6:26 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> 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 usable hostname, since many libraries
would treat it as a literal IP address instead.  And yet
it is still a domain name.

Indeed in a non-public network, I'm free to provision a
".1" TLD, and even create hosts as sub-domains of this name:

	example.128.0.0.1. IN A 192.0.2.1

perhaps making "128.0.0.1" an empty non-terminal.

-- 
	Viktor.