Re: [netmod] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

[[e-mail] (Martin Rex)]

S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 01:32 30-04-2013, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >I am not sure what you think is unclear. Note that the definition of
> >the typedef domain-name is unchanged from the one in RFC 6021. Perhaps
> >you can make a concrete text change proposal so I better understand
> >what your concern is.
> 
> I read draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-02.  In Section 4:
> 
>    "The domain-name type represents a DNS domain name.  The
>     name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible."
> 
> That sounds like a MAY.

That is a MAY.  That probably needs to be a may.

How do you recognize a "fully qualified" name anyway?


Today a huge number of machines simply does not have a
"fully qualified domain name" (and uses private address space).

My DSL router (a brand that is pretty common in Germany)
does _not_ provide a domain name via DHCP and will resolve
plain hostnames for all addresses that it hands out via DHCP.
And a lot of stuff that you attach to home networks comes
with a Web-UI (my DVB-S Set-Top Box, my HomeNAS, my DSL-router
(although the latter recognizes "fritz.box" as a name for itself).

-Martin