Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > > Regarding draft-ietf-dane-srv, I think it would be good to agree on > our terminology in this space.
Yes. > For example, RFC 6125 uses the terms "source domain" and "derived > domain" whereas draft-ietf-dane-srv uses the terms "service domain" and > "target server host name". Jeff Hodges and I tried to make our > terminology in RFC 6125 both clear and consistent with RFC 2782. If we > failed in that regard, please let us know (we do plan to work on 6125bis > at some point). If not, I suggest that we try to align > draft-ietf-dane-srv with RFC 6125. I think I would prefer to stay closer to RFC 2782 terms, something like "SRV Name field" and "SRV Target field", perhaps. As I understand it, the RFC 6125 terms are generic, intended to apply to more situations than just SRV indirections. I want to keep this spec as concrete and direct as I can. The reason for the current terminology is that I want to emphasize the difference between host names (to which TLSA records are related) and domain names (a more general concept). There is also some hangover from the earlier MX-specific version, where "mail domain" and "MX target host name" is fairly normal terminology. Thank you for the feedback. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first. _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
