Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> We are all on the same page here. Defining domain is a worthwhile endeavor.

There's a pefectly good definition in RFC 920:
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc0920.txt

| The Purpose of Domains
| 
|   Domains are administrative entities.  The purpose and expected use of
|   domains is to divide the name management required of a central
|   administration and assign it to sub-administrations.  There are no
|   geographical, topological, or technological constraints on a domain.
|   The hosts in a domain need not have common hardware or software, nor
|   even common protocols.  Most of the requirements and limitations on
|   domains are designed to ensure responsible administration.
| 
|   The domain system is a tree-structured global name space that has a
|   few top level domains.  The top level domains are subdivided into
|   second level domains.  The second level domains may be subdivided
|   into third level domains, and so on.
| 
|   The administration of a domain requires controlling the assignment of
|   names within that domain and providing access to the names and name
|   related information (such as addresses) to users both inside and
|   outside the domain.
 
>  We cannot do it in a vacuum.  Politics and economics are involved. The majority here
> seem to view domains as property of which the word is reflective.

Granted, the definition above can be extended in various ways, and some of
the extensions have political or economic consequences.

Do you have some argument as to why we need such an extension?
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html