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

Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> Thu, 03 July 2008 11:21 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 D2D7E3A68BD; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 04:21:54 -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 7A0613A68BD for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 04:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.176, 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 7EE8KqnuwW1Z for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 04:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8A63A68B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m63BLqEk043338; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:21:54 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org)
Message-Id: <200807031121.m63BLqEk043338@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:06:40 +0200." <20080703080640.GA8026@nic.fr>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:21:52 +1000
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:23:58AM +1000,
>  Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote 
>  a message of 32 lines which said:
> 
> > 	No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld" or "user@tld"
> > 	to work reliably. 
> 
> [Mark, you used non-RFC2606 names, the IESG will put a DISCUSS against
> you.]
> 
> I agree but it is not the point: an email adress like
> bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr is legal and works but not reliably (there are
> many stupid broken Web forms which refuse it and tell me it's not
> valid).
> 
> http://example is legal and should work. If it does not, it may
> indicate a broken implementation.

	But where should it resolve to?  "example.example.net."
	or  "example."?  Under what circumstances?

> >       I suspect there are still mail configuations
> > 	around that will re-write "user@tld" to "user@tld.ARPA"ARPA".
> 
> There are many broken mail configurations.
> 
> > 	Should we be writting a RFC which states that MX and address
> > 	records SHOULD NOT be added to the apex of a TLD zone?
> 
> No. A TLD is a domain like any other and we should not write special
> rules for them.

	Names with and without dots already have different semantics.
	
> > 	Should we be writting a RFC which states that single label
> > 	hostnames/mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up "as is" in
> > 	the DNS?
> 
> I hate special cases.

	TLDs are already a special cases in so many ways.

	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf