RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 03 July 2008 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D71A3A68FC; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580363A68A1 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.287
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t5jqXeC3bWHv for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s5.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s5.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 878CE3A6861 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU137-W11 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s5.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:26:46 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU137-W11B50878943FB03BF4C33C93980@phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.75]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Lyman Chapin <lyman@acm.org>
Subject: RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:26:45 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <8953A1CE-E953-409F-A692-BD12DF4ADE61@acm.org>
References: Your message of <200807022323.m62NNwVJ034275@drugs.dv.isc.org> <BLU137-W18376D2DBA85C8F712C06F93980@phx.gbl> <8953A1CE-E953-409F-A692-BD12DF4ADE61@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2008 22:26:46.0023 (UTC) FILETIME=[E09D5970:01C8DD5B]
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1279744769=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Lyman said: 
 
> I'm familiar with <draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt> and understand > the importance of using only FQDNs in SMTP exchanges given that "[i]n > the case of a top-level domain used by itself in an email address, a > single string is used without any dots." What I'm interested in is > any reason to proscribe the use of a TLD as a single label hostname > (particularly for email addresses) other than the fact that there is > software out there that will interpret it incorrectly -
Potential problems with global use of single-label names go beyond SMTP.  
For example,  RFC 4282, which defines the Network Access Identifier 
(NAI), does not permit the use of single-label names. From Section 2.1: 
 
   realm       =  1*( label "." ) label
 
As a result, someone purchasing the "example" TLD and using the NAI
bob@example in order to obtain access to the network, might well 
discover that this would not work. 
 
  
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf