I think that "meaning" is more likely to be understood than "binding," although I think your technical point is valid. Same with global/local. I'll see if I can add some clarifying text. Thanks for the review!
> On May 16, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Andrew McConachie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/15/17 10:57, [email protected] wrote: >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF. >> >> Title : Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement >> Authors : Ted Lemon >> Ralph Droms >> Warren Kumari >> Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04.txt >> Pages : 27 >> Date : 2017-05-15 >> >> Abstract: >> The Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC 6761 >> has been shown through experience to present unanticipated >> challenges. This memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive, >> of the problems that have been identified. In addition it reviews >> the history of Domain Names and summarizes current IETF publications >> and some publications from other organizations relating to Special- >> Use Domain Names. >> >> > The use of the term 'meaning' in this document is problematic. Meaning is > something that humans do, not machines. What I believe we're actually > interested in is scoping and binding. How a name is scoped and what object it > gets bound to, not what it means. > > For example the text: > "Domain Names with unambiguous global meaning are preferable to > Domain Names with local meaning which will be ambiguous. > Nevertheless both globally-meaningful and locally-special names > are in use and must be supported." > > Should probably be changed to: > "Domain Names with unambiguous global bindings are preferable to > Domain Names with local bindings which will be ambiguous. > Nevertheless both globally-scoped and locally-scoped names > are in use and must be supported." > > This is more akin to how programming language designers discuss this > subject.[1] I don't want to delve into the usage of 'meaning' in RFC 2826 > itself, but there are a couple other uses of 'meaning' in this I-D that I > believe should be removed, and I am happy to send text if people agree. > > I'm also worried that some readers of this document might interpret its use > of 'global' or 'local' in a geographic sense, and not a scoping sense. But I > don't know how to deal with this. Perhaps it's just a risk. > > Thank you for all your hard work on this, > Andrew > > [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0227/ > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
