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: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A5E3A6B19; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4EE3A6B19 for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6tfNvkgdCW4Q for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2D93A6B12 for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (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: <>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:32:31 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>, Mark Andrews <>, Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2122515985=="

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.


Ietf mailing list