[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] authoritative

[David Cake]

I think that is still problematic. The term IS defined in several closely related fields (e.g. DNS and Thick WHOIS) so even if we are clear about our definition it will still raise questions about which definition applies. 

David

> On 2 May 2017, at 7:41 pm, Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com> wrote:
> 
> Regarding "authoritative": the solution is not to avoid a word because someone might possibly have another idea of what it means.  A solution is for the WG to settle on definitions and then use the words consistently.  That's what engineers and policy-makers do all the time in RFCs, and papers like SAC051 (which gave us some foundational terms), and WG reports.   
> 
> All best,
> --Greg
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding
> Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 7:31 AM
> To: Gnso-rds-pdp Wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] authoritative
> 
>> By Authoritative are we meaning that
> 
> Canonical ?
> Received ?
> Central ?
> Aggregated ?
> 
>> I thought the recommendation was that we weren't meaning _anything_, 
>> and that we just weren't going to use the term.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Rob
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg