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

Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU> Mon, 07 July 2008 21:02 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 E17B728C206; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:02:11 -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 6B1A23A68FA for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 cWtZLprJdvsx for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C414D3A6B49 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id m67L1dEe015195; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:01:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from closure.thunk.org (c-98-216-98-217.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [98.216.98.217]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id m67L1UZu023539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:01:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tytso by closure.thunk.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <tytso@mit.edu>) id 1KFxpy-0002fe-Lf; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:01:30 -0400
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:01:30 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <20080707210130.GT31490@mit.edu>
References: <20080707133210.AWH55905@m1.imap-partners.net> <20080707203828.GC2300@zod.isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080707203828.GC2300@zod.isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
Cc: moore@network-heretics.com, 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:32:10PM -0700, moore@network-heretics.com wrote:
> > If you can cite verifiable evidence that even a single case that works
> > reliably now, will cease to work, I'll concede that there is at least
    ^^^^^^^^
> > a hint of merit to your argument.   e.g. an actual email address or
> > URL that uses a single-label domain name.
> 
> zod:~$ ping hk
> PING hk (203.119.2.28): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 203.119.2.28: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=183.582 ms

% ping hk.
PING hk (203.119.2.28) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.hkdnr.hk (203.119.2.28): icmp_seq=1 ttl=238 time=265 ms
64 bytes from www.hkdnr.hk (203.119.2.28): icmp_seq=2 ttl=238 time=265 ms

Not very reliably, I think.  :-)

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