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

John C Klensin <> Tue, 08 July 2008 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE83E3A69B4; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A2C28C0CF for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.37
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lr2ObmzzUrsi for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BDA3A6405 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KG4uw-0000uw-HR; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:35:06 -0400
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:35:05 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Mark Andrews <>, Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <7313F090683A8F0E554905CF@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--On Tuesday, 08 July, 2008 11:47 +1000 Mark Andrews
<> wrote:

>> The site-dependent interpretation of the name is determined
>> not by the presence of dot within the name but its absence
>> from the end.
> 	No.  Please go and re-read RFC 921.

This is the same RFC 921 that 
	* is listed in the RFC Index as "Status: UNKNOWN"
	* was not even examined in the "requirements" review
	that led up to RFC 1123 and is not referenced there.
	* primarily talks about an implementation schedule and
	transition plan, not about long-term stable


Isn't claiming that as an authority in 2008 a bit of a stretch?
Especially since, as Ted Farber points out, text in 1035 itself
seems to contradict your reading of that particular section?

I believe that 952 is almost equally irrelevant wrt this
argument. YMMD, of course.

As Keith points out, there are lots and lots of reasons to avoid
believing that dot-less strings will be interpreted as domain
names consistently and in the way that users will expect.  Most
of them have to do with handling of names in applications, which
tends to get strange in edge cases and stranger when one relies
too much on having specific contents in resolver configuration
files.  The mere fact of inconsistent (but valid)
interpretations in different applications or configurations (or
even implementations of the same 
application) may be more than enough reason to avoid these
things, or at least be very careful about them.  But claiming
921 as an authority isn't one of the reasons, IMO.


Ietf mailing list