On 08/08/2012 19:52, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> Except, of course, that it's not a "DN" at all: it's not a domain
>> name.
>
> Also not "qualified", as long as we're quibbling. But I do think the
> distinction between FQDN and <thing we're talking about> is a useful one
> to have terminology for, and "LQDN" does get the job done even though it
> doesn't make proper acronymic sense; I suggest we continue using it here
> in the short term and plan on switching to a more precisely accurate term
> by the time we start producing RFC's.
>
> I don't have spare cycles to participate in the bikeshedding, but I'll
> be happy with anything that agrees with the definition previously
> proposed for "LQDN".
As far as I can see there are still two kinds of LQDN:
ALQDN - ambiguous, or potentially ambiguous, names (like printer.local)
ULQDN - unambiguous, or almost certainly unambiguous, names (like
printer.<gibberish>.sitelocal)
I will be unhappy if ALQDNs are allowed except as legacy.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
