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

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 05:48:49PM +0100, Chris Thompson wrote:

>> 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.
>
> But RFC 2136 defines RRset (and uses it heavily) and that takes precedence
> over RFC 2181 by a whole 3 months in publication date! :-)

Hrm, now that's a good point.  I forgot about that definition.
Therefore, I must revise my opinion, and claim that RRset is indeed
defined.  Nevertheless, since 2181 says it's the "clarifications"
document, I still claim that it is authoritative on this topic.
Still, for questions of publication style, the right authority is the
RFC Editor.  If I were going to make it to Hiroshima (I have a
personal conflict that can't be resolved in the IETF meeting's
favour), I'd probably stop by their desk and ask them.

> You want to start a curmudgeoness contest *here*? That's extremely ...
> brave of you.

I did limit the scope to rules for English, please note!

A

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