Talk:Subdomain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussion of "vanity domain" 2 Broken Link in External Links Section 3 Validity of information in question 4 This article is misleading 5 false information

[edit] Discussion of "vanity domain"

Would recommend that the discussion of alternate uses of "vanity domain" be moved into a separate article to avoid confusion.

I feel this page is absolutely in error to include the negative stuff about vanity domains and its definitions. Has nothing of value in telling us what a subdomain is. My subdomains don't fit those definitions, e.g. wiki.*, ftp.*, map.*, www.*

Motivations have nothing significant to do with what functionality is obtained with subdomains. The section on subdomain shortening services should be removed, it has nothing to do with defining subdomains and appears to be more misguided negative discussion about vanity domains and their affects. An article on URL substitution might house it.

The root cause is the fact that somebody made vanity domain into a redirect to this article, which then necessitates that some mention of its alternate meanings be included. Maybe it should be separated out. *Dan T.* 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've added some content; check it over kthx. EdC 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link in External Links Section

The Link Domain Names - Implementation and Specification in the External Links section is broken.

Regards, Siddhesh

Fixed to point to the IETF RFC server. 198.51.119.130 18:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of information in question

Real simple, www.yahoo.com:

www = subdomain or third level domain
yahoo = domain name
com = top level domain or TLD

This article is inaccurate and is in need of a rewrite.

Yes, and all are subdomains of of their parent domain. DNS is hierarchical, and the term expresses a relation within that hierarchy. Note that your three-level scheme doesn't apply to gSLD-allocated names. –EdC 00:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not really encyclopidic, and it is poorly written. But with my busy schedual I do not have time to edit everything.

Evidently you don't have time to correctly spell your unattributed contributions either. EdC 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is misleading

A subdomain is not something like support.example.com. That's a Hostname. A case in which support.example.com would be a subdomain is if you had hostname records within it, like www (www.support.example.com), printers (printers.support.example.com) and so on. The support.example.com may also be an A record, which is called the domain A record, but that's different. People keep calling things subdomains when they aren't really and its confusing to people who know. This article only furthers that confusion by using examples like en.wikipedia.org being a subdomain. It is not, thats a hostname. So I'd like to get a consensus here before changing the article. -- Suso 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article is in much need of references. That said, all the RFCs (RFC 1034, RFC 1035, etc.) support the articles discussions about what is and is not a subdomain. In the last paragraph of RFC 1034 section 3.1. "Name space specifications and terminology", it gives a fairly clear explanation of a subdomain, which matches this article. As another example, RFC 1035 section 2.3.1 gives the ANBF for a subdomain which matches this article's usage. Domains such as support.example.com indeed also subdomains. Having A records is not what makes something a domain. Can you please give citations from the DNS RFCs that contradict what this article says? Wrs1864 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What Wrs1864 said. support.example.com. is clearly a subdomain, because it is a domain name identifying a domain, and is not the root. Assuming it has an A (or AAAA) record, it is also a hostname, but it is not required to be. Please read the relevant RFCs before setting yourself up as an expert. EdC 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] false information

The way this article reads, it seems as though if a website goes down, the websites that are hosted on it also go down, however there are 2 notable exceptions to this, Doom WAD Station and Mancubus.net are currently down websites. However some example.mancubus.net and example.doomwadstation.com (as well as [[doomwadstation.com/example and mancubus.net/example are still up, yet their websites are 404. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.33.220 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of the article, it doesn't appear to address such issues at all. In any case, there is a distinction between fundamental Internet services such as DNS and application-level services such as HTTP; a site's DNS can well be responding fine even when some of its HTTP services are unavailable. EdC (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)