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

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 07:30:27 -0800

Greetings again.

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".
Please review the lengthy explanation and comment on the list if you 
think the definition should change.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:23 +0100

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 07:30:27AM -0800,
 Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 16 lines which said:

> 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

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 :-(

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:05:23 -0800

> retains the original definition of RFC 1034."

+1.

-- 
P Vixie

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:49 -0500

>> retains the original definition of RFC 1034."

+1

-- 
Bob Harold