Section 4.1.2 of the tldr document actually says almost exactly what you
said in your four-pronged strategy, but without the pejorative bit.
However, it only talks about this in the case of special-use names, not in
the case of names generally.   I certainly generally agree with the
taxonomy you're proposing, although I could do without the pejorative bit,
and I think it needs to mention RFC 6303-style names, which I think you
left out.   Whether this taxonomy belongs in the document is certainly a
valid question.   The taxonomy that is _in_ the document could fairly
easily be adapted to say what you said, and I would support doing that.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:58 PM, John R Levine <> wrote:

> ... and I have just posted a new version with the term Domain Names -
>> I (and I think Ted) prefer Internet Names, but our preferences are not
>> important, we want to do whatever the WG wants.
> Personally, I'm more concerned with getting the issues identified, and
> then we can decide what to call them.  Anyone else like my four pronged
> strategy?
> Regards,
> John Levine,, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to