Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> RFC 7085 mentions MX queries to other existing TLDs, not MAIL. And I would be equally concerned with MX requests for dotless MAIL than with A/AAAA/SRV requests for dotless MAIL. 

dotless names were never contemplated as endpoints, even in the
HOSTS.TXT era (see for example DECWRL.ARPA). so while i'm happy to have
dotlessness shot down as often and as variously as possible, and to see
those shoot-downs well documented, diverse, and unassailable, the raw
fact of the matter is that a dotless name should _never_ be accidentally
presentation-reachable.

what i mean by presentation reachable is, you can't ping it, you can't
send mail to it, you can't point an MX or NS or PTR at it, you can't
look up its AAAA or A by typing it into a web browser, and so on.

anybody who wants more background, see
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110620_domain_names_without_dots/>.

anybody still not convinced and who thinks this is a castle worth
storming, see <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1242499>.

> Saying there is a concern with dotless MAIL is an easy sell, my question was on issues with not-dotless MAIL. 

i agree with ruben. i know of a lot of local uses of HOME, CORP, and
LOCAL, where non-dotless names inside some network perimeter have local
meaning. i know of no instance of MAIL being used that way.

-- 
Paul Vixie