Re: "organization's top level domain"
John C Klensin <john-ietf <at> jck.com>
2010-09-05 16:43:39 GMT
Dave,
I've occasionally used "enterprise primary domain" or
"organizational primary domain" in my writing, just to avoid the
use of "top-level". I've also used some convolutions to
distinguish enterprise-managed domains from domains managed by
registries that serve many enterprises and that consist primary
or exclusively of delegation records and records needed to
support them, but that isn't quite the same thing and I've never
found crisp wording. My recollection is that some folks in the
DNS community have used something like "all-delegation domains"
to refer to the next level up from what you are talking about,
but the term is not precisely accurate (given SOA records, glue,
etc.).
Also note that, if current ICANN plans continue, your "two or
more fields" requirement may soon be incorrect. Under their
proposed model, nothing would prevent an organization that has
the needed operational capability and that is willing to spend
the money from acquiring a TLD and trying to put, e.g., MX
records in it. The SMTP spec isn't happy about that idea, but
that is not a DNS issue and various specs that depend on SRV or
NAPTR records impose no such restrictions. And, fwiw, one of
the few clear bits of DNS terminology (see below) is that what
you are referring to as a "field" is called a "label" and, as
far as I know, nothing else.
I'd suggest raising this with the DNS Directorate (assuming it
is still functional) and/or the DNSOPS and DNSEXT WGs. As you
probably know, there are periodic discussions about putting
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed