On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:17:22AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > ALQDN - ambiguous, or potentially ambiguous, names (like printer.local)
That doesn't need a new name. We have a name for that: "relative". See RFC 1034 section 3.1. > ULQDN - unambiguous, or almost certainly unambiguous, names (like > printer.<gibberish>.sitelocal) > That example is strictly speaking a relative name, too, since it isn't qualified by the root label. But my point upthread was not about bikeshedding the things we call this, but to observe that there are different naming technologies (we concentrated on DNS and mDNS names, but we also have NetBIOS and llmnr names. The latter is very similar to but not exactly the same as mDNS. We can only wish that NetBIOS names are all gone). I think the impulse to try to get these to work together from the user's perspective is right, but for the purposes of protocol development we need to attend to the fact that they're all just different technologies. > I will be unhappy if ALQDNs are allowed except as legacy. Me too, but since they're built right into RFC 1034 (which is still STD 13), I think we're dreaming. We might as well wish that the world be freed from NAT. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
