Re: Last Call: 'Domain Suffix Option for DHCPv6' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> 
> 
> 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.

	Well for this option to encode a TLD it would have to
	encode 2 label.

	As for "domain name suffix" while I can't remember seeing
	a formal definition.  In the DNS world it is any domain
	name appended to a unqualified or partially qualified domain
	name to create a fully qualified domain name.

	Now the DNS RFC's always talk about both wire and presentation
	formats.  The option itself is a domain name in uncompress
	DNS wire format.
 
> > 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 mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
ISC Training!  October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DHCP.  Email training@xxxxxxxx
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]