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

Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU> Tue, 08 July 2008 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A8F28C3B7; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3710928C3BE for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.321
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iej+rH5ygOez for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A4028C39D for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6822T95006766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from faber@localhost) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m6822S9K015420; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:02:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from faber)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:02:28 -0700
From: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
To: Mark Andrews <>
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: 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="===============0778885541=="

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:47:15AM +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.

What a charming document.

I don't see anything in it that indicates a hierarchical name can't
consist of one level, though I see plenty of examples of 2-level names.
If you see text in there that I missed, I'm all ears.

I do see this in RFC 1035, though:

>When a user needs to type a domain name, the length of each label is
>omitted and the labels are separated by dots (".").  Since a complete
>domain name ends with the root label, this leads to a printed form which
>ends in a dot.  We use this property to distinguish between:
>   - a character string which represents a complete domain name
>     (often called "absolute").  For example, "poneria.ISI.EDU."
>   - a character string that represents the starting labels of a
>     domain name which is incomplete, and should be completed by
>     local software using knowledge of the local domain (often
>     called "relative").  For example, "poneria" used in the
>     ISI.EDU domain.
>Relative names are either taken relative to a well known origin, or to a
>list of domains used as a search list.  Relative names appear mostly at
>the user interface, where their interpretation varies from
>implementation to implementation, and in master files, where they are
>relative to a single origin domain name.  The most common interpretation
>uses the root "." as either the single origin or as one of the members
>of the search list, so a multi-label relative name is often one where
>the trailing dot has been omitted to save typing.

That sounds a lot to me like "hk." is as global as ""

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