On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 08:49:19 AM -0400 John C Klensin
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
Sure. But that isn't what the term means in common (non-IETF)
practice and the document is quite specific that the return
value contain exactly one label (er, "item") with no provision
at all for two.
Except it doesn't say "label"; that's your interpretation. I grant it is
an entirely reasonable interpretation, and in fact the alternate
interpretation that was suggested is not one that would have occurred to me.
IMO, this document should be rejected, and should stay rejected
until the authors clean up their terminology, explain how the
capability is intended to be used, and then explain why the
Internet needs it. Once it reaches that point, a Last Call
review will make sense
I agree. As it stands, this document refers to DNS concepts using terms
other than those normally used, and in particular the term "domain suffix",
while not having any formal meaning I am aware of, has at least one
commonly-used meaning which is different than that apparently intended by
the authors.
In short, I believe this document currently lacks the precision appropriate
for an IETF specification.
, but I would suggest that the proposal
should still be rejected unless the return value can be an
all-but-hostname FQDN, not a single-label "suffix".
I agree with this also, given that the latter seems fairly useless.
Fortunately, I suspect the document authors also agree, and are simply
using poor terminology to say what they mean.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf