[bind10-dev] observation

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉]

At Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:09:34 +0000,
Evan Hunt <each at isc.org> wrote:

> We have RRClass (with a capital C), RRType (with a capital T), and RRset
> (with a lower-case s).  Should we make this more consistent?

Why RRset is with a lower-case s is documented in the source file:

// Note about terminology: there has been a discussion at the IETF namedroppers
// ML about RRset vs RRSet (case of "s").  While RFC2181 uses the latter,
// many other RFCs use the former, and most of the list members who showed
// their opinion seem to prefer RRset.  We follow that preference in this
// implementation.

I don't have a strong opinion about RRClass and RRType, although I
personally wouldn't necessarily consider RRType/RRClass vs RRset a
style inconsistency.  If others strongly prefer the consistent use of
the case for the RR* classes, I'm willing to change that.  In that
case, since the style of RRset has (IMO) a compelling reason, we'd
change RRClass/RRType to RRclass/RRtype respectively.

One consideration point would be the RRTTL class.  Following this
convention, it would become RRttl, but this seems to be a bit awkward
to me, in that lower case letters are used for an acronym
(i.e. "ttl").

---
JINMEI, Tatuya