On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 08:49:19 AM -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> 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.
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 occurred to me.
IMO, this document should be rejected, and should stay rejected until the authors clean up their terminology, explain how the capability is intended to be used, and then explain why the Internet needs it. Once it reaches that point, a Last Call review will make sense
I agree. As it stands, this document refers to DNS concepts using terms other than those normally used, and in particular the term "domain suffix", while not having any formal meaning I am aware of, has at least one commonly-used meaning which is different than that apparently intended by the authors.
In short, I believe this document currently lacks the precision appropriate for an IETF specification.
, but I would suggest that the proposal
should still be rejected unless the return value can be an all-but-hostname FQDN, not a single-label "suffix".
I agree with this also, given that the latter seems fairly useless. Fortunately, I suspect the document authors also agree, and are simply using poor terminology to say what they mean.
-- Jeff _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf