On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:04:55AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes: > > > - 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 > > > > - Proposal: ? > > Maybe it is better to basically keep the existing inet:domain name for use > e.g. in host names that appear in all kinds of non-DNS configuration, and > leave the definition of a domain name type appropriate for use in DNS zone > data etc. to DNSOP WG. > > So my proposal is to only modify the description accordingly, and in > particular remove the comment about the use in A/AAAA/SRV resource records, > because the existing type isn't really suitable for this purpose. >
Can you please send OLD NEW text? I do not really see what needs changes. Note that this type definition gets tweaked everytime by IESG members as well. /js -- 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
