IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 08 July 2008 18:56 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 B0D5E3A6AC8; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:56:25 -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 5E7363A6811 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 clAwdSq2h9Qg for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4473A6AC8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nib.isi.edu [128.9.160.144]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m68Iu7ML027028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4873B846.5070803@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:56:06 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
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> <4873B5F8.1060702@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <4873B5F8.1060702@network-heretics.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1850815440=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


Keith Moore wrote:
> 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.

I'll repeat:
	
	some app misbehaviors are just bugs

	not all app misbehaviors define new, acceptable behavior

At some point we as a group decide what to accept as BCP, and what to 
just call a bug. This, IMO, falls squarely in the 'bug' bin.

Joe


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email