[161020] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: looking for terminology recommendations concerning non-rooted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Fri Feb 22 13:21:16 2013
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:20:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <668253EE-8629-4A87-9205-4064534D3C33@hopcount.ca>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Abley" <jabley@hopcount.ca>
> Actually, I think the problem is the confusion between a label string
> terminated in a dot (to indicate that no search domain should be
> appended) and a label string not so-terminated (which might mean that
> a search domain is attempted, depending on local configuration).
In fact, Joe, I think it's distinguishing your second case from "a label
string which is intended to reference a rooted FQDN, but the user did not
specify the trailing dot -- and yet still does not want a search path
applied"...
which is 99.9999% of the time outside of large corporate and college
campuses, and only 99.9% of the time, otherwise. :-)
> The terminology "root zone" or "root domain" to explain the trailing
> dot is misleading and unhelpful, I find.
No, what's *really* unhelpful and misleading is the people who say that
it is the *dot* which specifies the name of the root, rather than the
null labelstring which *follows* that dot (which is what it actually
is, and I'll save everyone's stomach linings by not saying the words
"alternate root" here. :-)
Cheers,
-- jr 'new intercalations on every message for authentication' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
