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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

Joe Touch wrote:

>> 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.

IMO you are broadly overgeneralizing.

For many apps (and certainly for the apps most widely used today), the 
ability to use relative names, even as an accident because the API 
allows them, is a bug.

Many, many working groups have looked at the problems associated with 
relative names and determined that they're not acceptable.  It's a "bug" 
that relative names are forbidden in these apps, nor that the final "." 
is implicit and in many cases disallowed.  These are carefully 
considered design features.  (for instance, forbidding the final "." 
makes it simpler to compare domain names for equivalence.)

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