On Jul 31, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Rich Smith via Public <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
> Overall, I like your suggestions, but could I ask that in definitions where
> you refer to outside RFC definitions that you include those outside
> definitions verbatim so that someone reading the BRs does not have to go
> scouring through all the various RFCs? For example:
> Change:
> Domain Label: A “label” as defined in RFC 7719
>
> To:
> Domain Label: A “Label” as defined in RFC 7719: The identifier of an
> individual node in the sequence of nodes identified by a fully qualified
> domain name.
>
> This will make it much easier to parse the BRs on their own. Also, I know in
> general that as a best practice simply pointing to the reference is better so
> that if the reference definition changes, so would our definitions w/out
> having to take further action. However in this situation, I would consider
> that a bug rather than a feature. I don’t think we should allow changes to
> externally referenced definition to automatically change our definitions, at
> least in this case, without discussion and voting.
To (apologetically) throw a spanner into the works here: RFC 7719 is being
revised, and this very definition is changing to be clearer. The current draft
says:
Label: An ordered list of zero or more octets and which makes up a
portion of a domain name. Using graph theory, a label identifies
one node in a portion of the graph of all possible domain names.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
