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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Keith Moore wrote:
>>>> It's nonsensical for an application to decide that relative names 
>>>> are unacceptable, but to require users to input names as relative.
>>>
>>> it's nonsensical for you to unilaterally declare that such names are 
>>> relative, when well over two decades of practice indicates otherwise.
>>
>> I didn't declare it; 1034 did. 
> 
> Yes - but you're the one declaring that 1034 trumps decades of later 
> work.  Normally the assumption would be that work can be revised as bugs 
> are found or conditions change over time, and that things that had 
> achieved IETF consensus since 1034 was published would be considered at 
> least equal, and often superior, to earlier work.
> 
> I don't think 1034 was handed down from a mountain on stone tablets.

It was not. But when other programs started using the DNS, it was *they* 
that endorsed what the DNS as per that doc.

> I believe it always was inevitable that different apps would use DNS (or 
> any shared naming facility) in slightly different ways.

Yes. Some ways are compliant, others are not.

> Yes this is 
> somewhat confusing, but DNS (like the rest of the Internet) has been 
> stretched far beyond its original design goals or scale.  For instance, 
> we don't interpret DNS names as hostnames any more 

Who doesn't? If you're saying they could be more than one host, fine. If 
you're saying they're not hosts any more, I disagree.

If you're intent on saying "the Internet is whatever anyone says it is 
on any given day" - as the above suggests - I appreciate your confusion. 
I prefer to consider the Internet as being based on standards, and 
reliably working when - and *because* - we adhere to them.

Joe

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf