Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a request

[manning <[e-mail]>]

manning
[e-mail]
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102



On 2July2015Thursday, at 16:44, Robert Edmonds <[e-mail]> wrote:


> 
> Have a look at the later HTTP/1.1 RFCs (7230) and the URI generic syntax
> RFC (3986).  RFC 7230 defines http URIs, but it relies on the URI
> generic syntax (RFC 3986) to define "uri-host"'s, and that specification
> explicitly declines to require that "domain-looking-strings" be Internet
> DNS names:
> 
> 3.2.2.  Host
> 
>   [...]
> 
>   This specification does not mandate a particular registered name
>   lookup technology and therefore does not restrict the syntax of reg-
>   name beyond what is necessary for interoperability.  
[…]
> .  However, a globally scoped naming
>   system, such as DNS fully qualified domain names, is necessary for
>   URIs intended to have global scope.  URI producers should use names
>   that conform to the DNS syntax, even when use of DNS is not
>   immediately apparent, and should limit these names to no more than
>   255 characters in length.
> 
>   [...]
> 
> -- 
> Robert Edmonds

	There in lies the problem.  These systems have no way to disambiguate a local v. global scope.
         It seems like the obvious solution is to ensure that these nodes do NOT have global scope, i.e. No connection to the Internets
         and no way to attempt DNS resolution.   Or they need to ensure that DNS resolution occurs after every other “name lookup technology”
         which is not global in scope.

	Paul Vixies point about an escape method not being apparently visible comes to mind.