From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
Sent: 17 July 2020 20:17
- Lada suggested to replace the inet:domain-name usage in
the union with a new host-name definition that follows
the NR-LDH definition in RFC 5890.
- Unclear which problem is fixed and how this works from a
backwards compatibility perspective.
- See the thread '6991bis: host' in your private list archive
(I can't find it in the IETF archive)
- I can't tell for sure that Lada's proposal is (i) correct and (ii)
not breaking anything
<tp>
host and domain are two separate concepts with different semantics and
different syntax, something that those not familiar with the RFC often confuse
(but which most text books get right) so I have no problem with having host and
domain but am not a fan of changing the existing definition.
Tom Petch
- Proposal: ?
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
