On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:13 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
>> Having read them both, neither one thrills me but I'd give the nod to
>> adpkja.  The "Internet Names" in tldr seems to me a bad idea, since
>> there are a lot of other names on the Internet such as URIs and handle
>> system names, and this is about domain names.
> BTW, if this is your only reason for preferring one document to the other,
> it's pretty thin.   Maybe "Internet Names" is the wrong term to use.   It's
> one that we came up with pretty much on the spur of the moment

Actually, IIRC it originally came from a suggestion made in the ARCING
BoF, where it enjoyed quite strong support.
But, we are (of course) happy to change it to whatever the WG wants.
When reading these documents and choosing your preferred one, please
keep in mind that whatever you select is a *starting point* -- the
authors of whichever document will incorporate whatever changes the WG
asks for.

>  in Buenos
> Aires, because we didn't want to use "Domain Names," because "Domain Names"
> is too easily confused with "Domain Name System Protocol."   Personally, I
> like Domain Names, but I agree that the term begs for confusion.
> Point being, whichever document you like, we ought to figure out what term
> to use.   If it's "Domain Name," I'm fine with that.  I  used "Internet
> Name" because that seemed to be the consensus in the room, not because I'm
> wedded to it.

Yup, we will do whatever the WG asks of us.

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

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.

DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to