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

Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU> Tue, 08 July 2008 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3715228C25F; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD123A6AEC for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.604
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pLcZ7u65ka6Q for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9223A698F for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m68Kfhoe008447 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from faber@localhost) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m68KfgU9000212; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from faber)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:41:42 -0700
From: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
To: Keith Moore <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: 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="===============1571646870=="

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:17:57PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Ted Faber wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:28:05PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> >>there are also protocol specifications that expect DNS names to have 
> >>dots in them.
> >
> >One could argue that such protocols are not able to express all valid
> >domain names, which may be a feature. :-)
> The notion of a single-label fully-qualified DNS name being "valid" is 
> an odd one.   DNS, as far as I can tell, was always intended to be 
> federated, both in assignment and lookup.  The notion of having terminal 
> (basically, non NS) records at the root seems contraindicated by several 
> of the DNS design goals.

But there are no such non-NS records at the root.  The A record for the
host hk is on the .hk servers, not the root servers.  Conceptually, the
delegee controls the namespace at the root of the delegation.

This is exactly analogous to the practice of assigning an address to the
root of a delegated domain like  There are NS records in edu
pointing to isi servers and the A record for lives inside the
delegated namespace, which is entirely consistent with federation.

> And given the recent interest in vanity TLDs and ICANN's apparent lack 
> of willingness to run the DNS for the benefit of all, maybe it's time 
> for IETF to remind people that single label TLDs are not actually 
> supposed to work.

There are plenty of reasons to argue against using TLDs as hostnames,
but I don't think consistency with the federation/delegation model is

Ted Faber           PGP:
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See
Ietf mailing list