Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes: > - Lada suggested to replace the inet:domain-name usage in > the union with a new host-name definition that follows > the NR-LDH definition in RFC 5890. > > - Unclear which problem is fixed and how this works from a > backwards compatibility perspective. > > - See the thread '6991bis: host' in your private list archive > (I can't find it in the IETF archive) > > - I can't tell for sure that Lada's proposal is (i) correct and (ii) > not breaking anything > > - Proposal: ?
Maybe it is better to basically keep the existing inet:domain name for use e.g. in host names that appear in all kinds of non-DNS configuration, and leave the definition of a domain name type appropriate for use in DNS zone data etc. to DNSOP WG. So my proposal is to only modify the description accordingly, and in particular remove the comment about the use in A/AAAA/SRV resource records, because the existing type isn't really suitable for this purpose. Lada > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
