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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 08 July 2008 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA1128C34D; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2C228C353 for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w3zXY2CFOeg4 for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C16228C34C for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m68L33bn007664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:03:03 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>, Mark Andrews <>, Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1016670017=="

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.


Ietf mailing list