IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 18 December 2017 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 9D7B612D832 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:05:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 5D6sCXC7nhsT for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:05:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B06F120454 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:05:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.10.225] (50-255-33-26-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.255.33.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44F6161FA2; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:05:49 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5A381173.5000906@redbarn.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:05:23 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.22 (Windows/20171208)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
CC: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <F8509291-AAA0-49FC-BF84-21C3ECAF9813@vpnc.org> <20171218131223.yfu5ntzdyjivlnzi@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20171218131223.yfu5ntzdyjivlnzi@nic.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jIorxPE5pmW9N63rWtw1Q6fYx9w>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 18 Dec 2017 19:05:51 -0000


Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> As I mentioned in this errata
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4983>, I think RFC 2308 was
> wrong in redefining QNAME. My personal preference would be to change
> the second paragraph to "RFC 2308 proposed another definition,
> different from the original one. Since it is actually a different
> concept, it would be better to find another name for it. Here, QNAME
> retains the original definition of RFC 1034."

+1.

-- 
P Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email