IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 08 July 2008 18:47 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 4F1583A6AE3; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:47:08 -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 9CC7E3A689F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 oXaJA53CrT-a for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6FB28C25F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lust.indecency.org (mail.fiveman.com [72.242.14.234] (may be forged)) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.8.4-GA) with ESMTP id AWI80731 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4873B5F8.1060702@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:46:16 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: <20080708020228.GC10677@zod.isi.edu> <200807080254.m682sG2Q007427@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20080708161335.GB2519@zod.isi.edu> <4873948A.2040904@network-heretics.com> <4873AE46.6010906@isi.edu> <4873B2C0.1020008@network-heretics.com> <4873B353.20302@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4873B353.20302@isi.edu>
Cc: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>, 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Joe Touch wrote:

> Keith Moore wrote:
> |> RFC1043 defines the dot. The fact that some apps don't recognize it is a
> |> bug.
> |
> | not when the application explicitly specifies that FQDNs are to be used.
> | in such cases the dot is superfluous.
> 
> Superfluous is fine. Prohibited is not. If the app inputs DNS names,
> then FQDNs should be valid, even if redundant.

I don't think you get to revise a couple of decades of protocol design 
and implementation by declaring that RFC 1043's authors and process 
trump everything that's  been done afterward.

face it, there are large numbers of identifiers for which relative names 
are simply not appropriate - because they cannot be made to work well 
over the time frame that those identifiers need to be valid.  email 
addresses and URLs are two obvious examples.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email