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

[Robert Edmonds <[e-mail]>]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 07:30:27AM -0800,
>  Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote 
>  a message of 16 lines which said:
> 
> > Some of the new terms added to the terminology-bis draft
> > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/)since
> > RFC 7719 can expose what some (but not all) people perceive as lack
> > of clarity in RFC 1034/1035. This week, we hope you will look at the
> > definition in the draft for "QNAME".
> 
> 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."
> 
> Otherwise, if the WG prefers, I can live with the current text :-(

I agree with Stephane. The STD 13 definition of QNAME is extremely clear
while the RFC 2308 re-definition seems rare enough that it tends to
occur mainly in discussions about how to define QNAME :-\

-- 
Robert Edmonds