[161021] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: looking for terminology recommendations concerning non-rooted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Fri Feb 22 13:25:28 2013
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <30463315.6898.1361557257187.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:25:13 -0400
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Jay,
On 2013-02-22, at 14:20, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>> 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).
>=20
> 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=20=
> applied"...
That's the same as my second case.
"rooted FQDN" is also not well-defined outside this thread. I don't =
think just adopting the terminology unilaterally is going to make it so.
>> The terminology "root zone" or "root domain" to explain the trailing
>> dot is misleading and unhelpful, I find.
>=20
> No, what's *really* unhelpful and misleading is the people who say =
that
> it is the *dot* which specifies the name of the root,
The dot doesn't specify the name of the root. That's why it's confusing.
> 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. :-)
There is no null label string following the dot in a fully-qualified =
domain name, in this context. You're confusing the presentation of =
domain names with wire-format encoding of domain names.
Joe
