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

Philip Guenther <guenther+ietfd@sendmail.com> Mon, 30 June 2008 19:54 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 E904B3A6883; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:54:16 -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 B2B6F3A6883 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:54:15 -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=[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 ixzmoZmyC14m for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ladle.sendmail.com (ladle.sendmail.com [209.246.26.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037F33A6819 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fife.sendmail.com (fife.sendmail.com [209.246.26.50]) by ladle.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Sentrion-3.0.0) with ESMTP id m5UJwjYN030155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:58:45 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=ladle.dkim; t=1214855925; bh=2/NTWvSD33FgHtuD0yoz2YYvl7Cbpusx7aW/ nvanUvI=; h=Received:X-DKIM:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:X-X-Sender:To: cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:User-Agent: MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-MM-Ex-RefId; b=DS4az1xM97f3NZfJ43UIkeT ZMNC9L0Y6f8hGUDxSokTBxD0ZkYuyjEiE+oxd+SX9XUSeXF4s6/jNor00AxaF/Pt5r9 h81SDvH0sD67rey0WcW02EHtJMXvKPSE/DmorJgOCdtlYGTLLPWrWwZeUcArgTRVwQ5 OaX28m5fJiIaYE=
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-64-58-1-252.mho.net [64.58.1.252] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by fife.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id m5UJsLlb027209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:54:23 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.2.3 fife.sendmail.com m5UJsLlb027209
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=fife.dkim; t=1214855665; bh=2/NTWvSD33FgHtuD0yoz2YYvl7Cbpusx7aW/n vanUvI=; h=Date:From:X-X-Sender:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:References:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type: X-MM-Ex-RefId; b=M3UAx3zQO/f4XNAt5n7p4Ejb4JCsI9Ir2bZg6Lr6AqSLWIrQy bTT/y5xLokMCapAYSECq3zvYUt2JSoHbqqPh89N0yIzXxrLsY2UuS0kch3fmCQ9hw9Y gEQPdfPZskoJvtCew1UBGKzAJgbOyseRtTi71OPjrr4BUzO6eqDDl54=
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:54:20 -0600
From: Philip Guenther <guenther+ietfd@sendmail.com>
X-X-Sender: guenther@vanye.mho.net
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
In-Reply-To: <20080630190153.GB31520@sources.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSO.1.10.0806301341500.31181@vanye.mho.net>
References: <4C0AE13D-4CA6-4989-A6B0-555A014DE464@multicasttech.com> <74E3E26A-FCFB-45C1-989A-DD7EA5752974@virtualized.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20080627121824.02c55340@resistor.net> <BBB8E0B4-7E45-4BE9-B9DF-DEBE294585D6@multicasttech.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20080627140118.02a43fd8@resistor.net> <6F1CFDA0-A6E2-4257-8C72-0FCD1E117290@virtualized.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20080628201322.02e43268@resistor.net> <FBBF3BB9-D231-494A-AFBE-7F816DD1180C@virtualized.org> <20080630064127.GA5829@sources.org> <3B2E8E96-ACAA-4A13-BBE2-33DC80DDADC6@virtualized.org> <20080630190153.GB31520@sources.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSO 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MM-Ex-RefId: 149371::080630125424-58945B90-4752ACD6/0-0/0-1
Cc: IETF Discussion <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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 05:49:18AM -0700,
> David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote
> a message of 11 lines which said:
>
>> Speaking technically, how would you distinguish the top-level domain
>> "127.0.0.1" from the IP address 127.0.0.1?
>
> A word while passing here: is there a document (RFC, Posix standard,
> whatever) which says which is the right result in such a case?

POSIX (IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 Edition, aka the Single UNIX Specification, 
Version 3) specifies both inet_pton() and inet_addr().  The latter is 
required to accept the 'traditional' forms for IPv4 addresses with fewer 
than four components or using hex or octal numbers.  Contrawise, the 
former is forbidden from accepting such forms.

So the answer from that direction is "it depends".


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