On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2016, at 22:50, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400, >>> Matt Larson <[email protected]> wrote >>> a message of 41 lines which said: >>> >>> I'd venture that more people familiar with the subject matter would >>>> define QNAME as the name in the question section of a DNS message. >>>> (That's my sense of the definition, FWIW.) >>>> >>> >>> What about adding this text to the Terminology section of the draft? >>> >>> <t>"QNAME": it is defined in <xref target="RFC1034"/> and >>> in <xref target="RFC1035"/>, section 4.1.2, but, because <xref >>> target="RFC2308"/> provides a different definition, we repeat the >>> original one here: the QNAME is the owner name of the record in the >>> Question section.</t> >>> >> >> The QNAME is a domain name, but is it an owner name? There is no owned >> record data in the question section (and the entries in the question >> section are not RRs). >> > > Oddly, "owner name" is correct here. From RFC 1035, Section 3.2.1 which > describes the format of resource records: > > All RRs have the same top level format shown below: > > 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > | | > / / > / NAME / > | | > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > | TYPE | > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > . . . > > where: > > NAME an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this > resource record pertains. > Yes, Owner name is defined in terms of a resource record, i.e. the domain name that owns a resource record. But the question section has no resource record. It has 3 components of a potential resource record. -- Shumon Huque
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
