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

On 2013-05-09 07:31, mrex@sap.com wrote:

> 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?

RFC 1033 states:

    A domain name is a sequence of labels separated by dots.

    Domain names in the zone files can be one of two types, either
    absolute or relative.  An absolute name is the fully qualified 
domain
    name and is terminated with a period.

You recognise an FQDN by the terminating period.

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod