Thanks for the review, Florian. I will add a reference to RFC 9499 to the domain-name type definition. /js On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 03:14:48AM -0700, Florian Obser via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Florian Obser > Review result: Ready > [...] > > Changes relevant to the DNS are the introduction of a host-name type > and using that type in the definition of the host type. Both changes > are useful. In RFC 6991 the host type is too wide and domain-name type > has some hand-wavy text about host names having stricter requirements > than domain names. > > Strictly speaking the domain-name type does not fully capture what is > currently understood to be a domain name in the DNS, but the > description of the type acknowledges this: "The pattern above is > intended to allow for current practice in domain name use, and some > possible future expansion." This seems sensible for a YANG type. > > An informative reference to RFC 9499 - DNS Terminology would be > useful. > > I'm marking the draft "ready" from a dnsdir point of view. > -- Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
