IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11.txt> (DNS Terminology) to Best Current Practice

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 14 August 2018 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFEA128C65; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 06:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v4R-yh7tV3kM; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 06:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 732B5130E98; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 06:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:58214) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1fpZ47-000P0P-1G (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:08:51 +0100
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:08:51 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <B5A437EE-149A-432F-9308-2EEB56004F55@dukhovni.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808141407150.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <153298445658.8167.4045103372772856058.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7C7531F385095225A8D60CE1@PSB> <B5A437EE-149A-432F-9308-2EEB56004F55@dukhovni.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/epHiiwR-dIoLIs8pPSSceqw1eIs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11.txt> (DNS Terminology) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:08:55 -0000

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:
>
> Indeed in a non-public network, I'm free to provision a
> ".1" TLD, and even create hosts as sub-domains of this name:

This would break a (non-normative) promise in RFC 1123

                                   However, a valid host name can never
           have the dotted-decimal form #.#.#.#, since at least the
           highest-level component label will be alphabetic.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
North Utsire, South Utsire: Variable, becoming southerly 3 or 4, occasionally
5 later. Smooth or slight. Rain later. Good, occasionally poor later.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email