Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 08 July 2008 18:17 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 334B428C220; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:17:53 -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 5E73F28C220 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, 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 lJOksy7i66GN for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C72728C21B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lust.indecency.org (mail.fiveman.com [72.242.14.234] (may be forged)) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.8.4-GA) with ESMTP id AWI77470 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4873AF55.8060803@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:17:57 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: <20080707211347.GB2222@zod.isi.edu> <200807080018.m680IPi1016117@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20080708013242.GB10677@zod.isi.edu> <4872DEC5.9040707@network-heretics.com> <20080708172708.GC2519@zod.isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20080708172708.GC2519@zod.isi.edu>
Cc: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>, 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
Ted Faber wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:28:05PM -0400, Keith Moore 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. >> not so. in many contexts the trailing dot is not valid syntax. > > Let me be precise. The resolver treats those names differently because > it was handed a name that did or did not end in a dot - the resolver's > syntax for absolute vs. relative pathname. I understand that may > conflict with application syntax. Applications that do not support an > explicit notation for absolute domain names will not be able to look > them up when those names are masked by site-dependent resolution of > relative names. It's more likely that the application (as specified) simply expects (implicitly or explicitly) absolute domain names. If and when relative domain names "work", it's either by accident or a result of sloppy coding. Few applications are specified in such a way that relative DNS names make sense and there is a clear way to distinguish relative names from absolute DNS names. (Note that "make sense" generally includes converting relative names to absolute names in the context of whoever typed in the relative name - and dealing with the potential for skew over time between the relative name and absolute equivalent. in other words, this is not an easy thing to do well.) The problem is worsened because most APIs for name lookup are poorly designed in several ways. One of their problems is that they tend to do "relative" lookups by default even though often that's not desirable. Another problem is that they tend to do other kinds of lookups by default in addition to DNS (perhaps as a fallback) even in contexts where DNS lookups are required for interoperability. Applications may or may not work around these API problems, and to the extent they do, they probably don't do so consistently from one implementation to the next. > I understand that such maskings are more intuitive with short names like > "hk", but that limitation of the application interface applies to any > relative domain name. I'm not sure what "intuitive" means in this context. But the probability of collision is certainly larger for short names than for longer ones. I suspect it's also larger for single-label names than for multiple-label names, where each label is assigned by a different entity. And a higher probability of collision definitely translates to a lower degree of reliability. >> 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. For example, at the time DNS was established, single label names like CMUA or MIT-AI were the norm. But those names were not incorporated into the root (even during a transition), nor were TLDs created for those zones - because DNS was not intended to work that way. The whole idea was to federate the name space, not to provide another way to look up single-label names. (Instead, the names were incorporated into the .ARPA TLD for a time, with CNAMEs pointing to the real names.) So I persist in thinking that single-label DNS names are not valid, and that to the extent they work at all, they work only by accident or as a result of poor specification or sloppy implementation. 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. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN chan… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … SM
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … SM
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Abley
- RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Lawrence Conroy
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Baptista
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … SM
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John Levine
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Bill Manning
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Dave Crocker
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Philip Guenther
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Tony Finch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Dave Crocker
- RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Thomas Narten
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Philip Guenther
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John Levine
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Thomas Narten
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … James Seng
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Steve Crocker
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John Levine
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Paul Hoffman
- RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Lyman Chapin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Steve Crocker
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Bernard Aboba
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Bernard Aboba
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … SM
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … SM
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … James Seng
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … James Seng
- RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Bernard Aboba
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … James Seng
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … James Seng
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update… John C Klensin
- RE: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Bernard Aboba
- Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 … John C Klensin
- RE: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John C Klensin
- RE: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Bernard Aboba
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John Levine
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Dave Crocker
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Mark Andrews
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Mark Andrews
- RE: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John C Klensin
- RE: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2… JFC Morfin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John Levine
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names Karl Auerbach
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John Levine
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names Frank Ellermann
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Mark Andrews
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names Frank Ellermann
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John Levine
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John C Klensin
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Mark Andrews
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John Levine
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Mark Andrews
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John Levine
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … moore
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Lyman Chapin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Lyman Chapin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Vint Cerf
- Re: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2… William Tan
- Re: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2… Vint Cerf
- RE: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2… Edmon Chung
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Dave Crocker
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John C Klensin
- RE: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2… michael.dillon
- RE: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2… Ted Hardie
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John Levine
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John Levine
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Dave Crocker
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Bill Manning
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Theodore Tso
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Bill Manning
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Theodore Tso
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Willie Gillespie
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Karl Auerbach
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Theodore Tso
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Bill Manning
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Dave Crocker
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … James Seng
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Dave Crocker
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Abley
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Douglas Otis
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Bill Manning
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… John C Klensin
- RE: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Up… Cellario Luca
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Bob Braden
- Re: Single-letter names Eric Brunner-Williams
- RE: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2… John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Touch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Touch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Touch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Touch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Tony Finch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John Levine
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Touch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Touch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Touch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Touch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Bill Manning
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Joe Touch
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN … Ted Faber