Re: [dnsext] What is the 'canonical' spelling: RRset of RRSet ?

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 04:01:37PM +0200, Alfred HÃnes wrote:
> Background information usage in on selected 'important' DNS RFCs:
> o  "RRset" is used in RFCs 4033, 4034, 4035, and 4509;
> o  "RRSet" appears in RFCs 2181 and 5155.
> o  current DNS related I-Ds also vary; there are even drafts using both.
> 
> Any opinions?

From the evidence, there are plenty of opinions! But since 2181
defines RRSet and does not define RRset, I claim that the latter term
is undefined and that the former term is the only correct spelling of
the notion.  Contrariwise, others might argue that DNS is
case-preserving but case-insensitive, and therefore RRSet and RRset
(and even rrset) denote the same concept.  I answer that we are
writing in English and not DNS, and English is case-sensitive and
case-preserving.

I'll note (for those to whom these things are meaningful) that I also
believe the Gowers edition of Fowler to be the One True version and
that anything else is a needless innovation.  One might infer that I
am sort of curmudgeonly on this topic.  I am not, however, the RFC
Editor.  It might be worth asking them whether they have a rule about
this (but given the publications you mention, I doubt it).

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.