In message <[email protected]> Evan Hunt writes: > > 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". > > -- > Evan Hunt -- [email protected] > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
Even, With your definition, an enterprise with private DNS, (with nameservers that are not referenced by the root in any way) could also be considered to be "not a DN". The LQDN is a domain of local scope, tied to a a local sitelocal. domain that does not exist or may be different outside the site local scope. An enterprise hidden domain is a domain of local scope tied to a local domainname that does exists outside and is known to be different outside of the site local scope. So the difference is: sitelocal may not exist everywhere and if it does it is different - an enterprise hidden domain is known to exist everywhere and is known to be different elsewhere. LQDN makes a distinction, separating it from FQDN. LQDN has local scope. FQDN has global scope. The distinction is useful. BTW- If you argued that mDNS was not a form of DNS, I would agree. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
