--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 06:49 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
Sorry, probably that's all obvious, but where is ["domain
suffix"] defined ?
At the Verisign site. It is the new-speak for use when all us
ancient geeky types would prefer "TLD".
Not quite. A TLD is the right most (visible) field, like com,
net, my or us, whereas a "suffix" is typically longer,
constituting an "organizationl" base domain name string, like
example.com, or mtview.ca.us.
Dave, unfortunately, if "suffix" is formally defined, I haven't
been able to find it. And it has been relatively common
practice among registrars, registries, and other participants in
"the domain name market" to use "suffix" as a synonym for TLD,
as Fred suggests. That terminology follows the practice in a
number of operating systems of referring to the second part of a
two-part file name as a "suffix".
It is, IMO, just not acceptable for a standards-track document
to leave the interpretation of terms like "suffix" and "item" up
to the imagination of the reader when their definitions are key
to the implementation of the specification.
Hence:
Stig Venaas wrote:
> It's what a client might add to it's hostname to form an
FQDN.
is a particularly practical way of putting it.
Then that definition belongs in the specification. Moreover,
IMO, the authors of the specification should work with DNSext
and/or DNSops to determine whether there is other terminology
that might be more established and/or more clear and then use
it.
I've recently been reminded that the DHC charter requires
precisely that type of check and approval; I have reason to
believe that the charter requirement was not followed in this
case. To the extent to which a WG Charter is a contract between
the WG and the community, this particular WG has apparently
broken that contract.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf