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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 08 July 2008 20:32 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 20A5E3A6B19; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:39 -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 EC4EE3A6B19 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:37 -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 6tfNvkgdCW4Q for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2D93A6B12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:37 -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 m68KWVmN028254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4873CEDF.2080904@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:32:31 -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> <4873B846.5070803@isi.edu> <4873B993.9040705@network-heretics.com> <4873C6FE.2000601@isi.edu> <4873CC8F.3010601@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <4873CC8F.3010601@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="===============2122515985=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


Keith Moore wrote:
> 
>>> 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.)
>>
>> 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. Apps misbehaving over arbitrary periods 
of time don't make it otherwise.

> (and remember, some of these apps predate DNS and the whole notion of 
> relative names)

Those apps bought into the DNS spec (or started violating it) when they 
tied into the DNS - regardless of what they did with names before.

> it's almost as if the very concept of relative names in DNS is itself a 
> bug - especially if you insist that handling of DNS names be absolutely 
> uniform from one app to the next.  IMHO they cause far more problems 
> than they're worth.

I agree that relative names are probably not worth the trouble, but that 
doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to type a "." at the end of any 
DNS name. DNS names have a syntax; things that take DNS names as input 
and/or tie into the DNS protocol need to use that syntax, not presume to 
redefine it.

Joe

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