Message-ID: <rt-4.4.4-111582-1611590363-1614.8981-0-0@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.507 (Entity 5.507)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Subject: domain_realm documentation is still confusing
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR05MB3137AB67C9818AE94BBEDC4BAEBD9@BN6PR05MB3137.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-RT-Interface: Web
References: <BN6PR05MB3137AB67C9818AE94BBEDC4BAEBD9@BN6PR05MB3137.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <RT-Ticket-8981@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
RT-Send-CC:
Content-Length: 1009

There was a historical disagreement between the code and the documentation for [domain_realm].&nbsp; In the code, a mapping for x.y always implied subdomains of x.y as well as x.y itself, while the documentation originally claimed that it would only apply to x.y.&nbsp; So, you can still find config fragments floating around in our environment with a lot of redundant [domain_realm] entries (mit.edu and .mit.edu, for instance).<br />
<br />
In commit&nbsp;8f5ce824012f2caab6770df464f096c38dc4cb2e (ticket 7960), we corrected the example and wrote that &quot;A host name relation implicitly&nbsp;provides the corresponding domain name relation, unless an explicit domain name relation is provided.&quot;&nbsp; But I can see how that&#39;s unclear; we&#39;re still introducing the wrong concepts and then describing the code behavior as an afterthought.&nbsp; It might be more correct to describe x.y relations as applying to a domain (including all subdomains) and .x.y as applying only to subdomains of x.y.