Frank Ellermann wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
[domain suffix]
It is the new-speak for use when all us ancient geeky types
would prefer TLD.
It's what a client might add to it's hostname to form an FQDN. Typically
also used as domain search path by many systems if no explicit search
path is
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 09:19 +0200 Stig Venaas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
[domain suffix]
It is the new-speak for use when all us ancient geeky types
would prefer TLD.
It's what a client might add to it's hostname to form an FQDN.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 09:19 +0200 Stig Venaas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
[domain suffix]
It is the new-speak for use when all us ancient geeky types
would prefer TLD.
It's what a client might add to it's
Stig Venaas wrote:
In the context of this draft, the term domain suffix is not
meant to be just the TLD. If domain suffix generally means,
or is thought of as, just the TLD, then the draft should use
some other term instead.
The term is okay if you mention that it's supposed to be one
or
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 11:33 +0200 Frank Ellermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stig Venaas wrote:
In the context of this draft, the term domain suffix is not
meant to be just the TLD. If domain suffix generally means,
or is thought of as, just the TLD, then the draft should use
Stig,
in the MDRS project my group works on to support multilingual
distributed referential systems we use the concept of Usage Level
Domain which may have a problem with your usage of suffix. suffix
the usual/legal term used for the TLD in many non technical/general
languages. I tend to
Fred Baker wrote:
Sorry, probably that's all obvious, but where is [domain suffix]
defined ?
At the Verisign site. It is the new-speak for use when all us ancient
geeky types would prefer TLD.
Not quite. A TLD is the right most (visible) field, like com, net, my
or us, whereas a
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 06:49 -0700 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
Sorry, probably that's all obvious, but where is [domain
suffix] defined ?
At the Verisign site. It is the new-speak for use when all us
ancient geeky types would prefer TLD.
John C Klensin wrote:
Dave, unfortunately, if suffix is formally defined, I haven't
been able to find it.
Right.
I was not intending to suggest that the specification was acceptable,
and apologize for not making that clear.
I was merely noting that the construct only made sense in
On 9/27/06, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. It does not specify any syntactic detail for the domain suffix
field of the DHCP option. Is it a dotted ascii string? Some other
encoding?
While I was confused too as to what this option is intended to be used
for, I think that
The
Bill Fenner wrote:
While I was confused too as to what this option is intended to be used
for, I think that
The domain suffix in the 'domain suffix' field ...
MUST be encoded as specified in the section of RFC3315
titled Representation and use of domain names.
sufficiently specifies
I'm not sure why this discussion has broken out on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it not better for iesg@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:41:27AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
as John noted, the term item is not defined, so we don't know how many
labels (dns fields) are permitted. This
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Fred Baker wrote:
On Sep 26, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Sorry, probably that's all obvious, but where is [domain suffix]
defined ?
At the Verisign site. It is the new-speak for use when all us ancient
geeky types would prefer TLD.
I fail to see the
David W. Hankins wrote:
I am, however, a little skeptical at how useful it is going to be
to define the term 'domain name suffix'. I suspect the author of
this draft started by calling them 'zone suffixes' and was asked by
DNS zones are an administrative construct, not a user-visible naming
FWIW, domain suffix is used in RFC 3263, 3588, 4183 and 4620. In none
of these documents does it seem that the author has seen a requirement
for a definition; a domain name that is intended to be used as a suffix
of a complete domain name seems to be the implied definition.
A pity that
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:07:32AM -0700, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
On Sep 23, 2006, at 2:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
But as a matter of fact, draft-newman-i18n-comparator-14 doesn't
define any collations that would actually solve the Unicode NF
issue, so it's not really clear how this
Harald,
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
FWIW, domain suffix is used in RFC 3263, 3588, 4183 and 4620. In none
of these documents does it seem that the author has seen a requirement
for a definition; a domain name that is intended to be used as a suffix
of a complete domain
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 09:52 -0700 David W.
Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure why this discussion has broken out on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it not better for iesg@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because Last Call announcements invite such discussion. Some
people tend to go to
some of this I've said elsewhere, but not here. sorry if you've already
seen it.
IMHO this is fundamentally a very dubious option because DNS is the
authoritative source of name-to-address mappings, and the way to find
out what DNS name is assigned to a particular network address is to
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 08:09 -0700 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
Dave, unfortunately, if suffix is formally defined, I
haven't been able to find it.
Right.
I was not intending to suggest that the specification was
acceptable, and
On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 08:49:19 AM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. But that isn't what the term means in common (non-IETF)
practice and the document is quite specific that the return
value contain exactly one label (er, item) with no provision
at all for two.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 08:49:19 AM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. But that isn't what the term means in common (non-IETF)
practice and the document is quite specific that the return
value contain exactly one label (er, item) with no provision
at all
On Thursday, September 28, 2006 07:32:17 AM +1000 Mark Andrews
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except it doesn't say label; that's your interpretation. I grant it
is an entirely reasonable interpretation, and in fact the alternate
interpretation that was suggested is not one that would have
I support the textual descriptions of the changes Eliot made. However
I'm concerned that as with any effort to revise RFC 2026, there will
llikely be changes in wording that have unintended consequences. I am
not personally convinced that the value of revising RFC 2026 justifies
the risk of
Eliot Lear wrote:
we will find another list for this purpose.
Please consider to pick an existing list like pesci or newtrk
or similar, creating new lists for everything is just bad.
2026 must be revised and not merely updated
Your points (4) to (7) sound good, but not (1) to (3). I've
25 matches
Mail list logo
