IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Sun, 25 September 2016 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
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 4B745126B6D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] 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 9Xi3PFYegqbz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AACE1200DF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E57FB2421026; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 16:51:55 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160925162537.GA14945@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 17:51:54 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A8162514-B52B-4551-9587-D458F502DB02@rfc1035.com>
References: <147368142586.14471.16897934069436083953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160925162537.GA14945@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/hUMmHv59jKYHGKpOqBcbp8rOIMw>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 16:52:02 -0000

> On 25 Sep 2016, at 17:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> This label is intended to be used as the final (rightmost) label
> 
> No. It is rightmost only in LTR scripts. "final" is correct,
> "rightmost" isn't. Please delete it.

The original text is correct and doesn’t need fixing. Well, at least the quoted extract doesn’t.

Domain names are written left to right. So the final label (apart from the terminating NUL label for all the pedants on this list) is the rightmost component. Saying "final (rightmost) label” removes any uncertainty or scope for ambiguity. Saying “final label” would ADD that uncertainty for anyone out there who’s on really good drugs^W^W^W^W^Wusing a DNS-like name space that’s ordered from right to left. Mind you someone that misguided is unlikely to ever read this draft or RFC if it gets that far.

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status