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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

> 
> The site-dependent interpretation of the name is determined not by the
> presence of dot within the name but its absence from the end. 

not so.  in many contexts the trailing dot is not valid syntax.

> I don't buy "unreliable" as a diagnosis for that state of affairs.  "hk"
> operates exactly as any other DNS name with respect to search path. 

search path isn't the only factor here.

there are also protocol specifications that expect DNS names to have 
dots in them.

there are also software implementations that use the presence/absence of 
a dot to distinguish a DNS name from some other kind of name.  in any 
context where both a DNS name and something else can appear, it's useful 
to be able to distinguish the two - and the presence/absence of a dot is 
about the only test that works.

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