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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 09 July 2008 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB5628C0DF; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C33A28C0DF for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MnMnA7O90MY5 for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DE728B797 for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m694X1lT027489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:32:58 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Andrews <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>, 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="===============1255657443=="

Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>> It's nonsensical for an application to decide that relative names are 
>>>> unacceptable, but to require users to input names as relative.
>>> it's nonsensical for you to unilaterally declare that such names are 
>>> relative, when well over two decades of practice indicates otherwise.
>> I didn't declare it; 1034 did. 
> 	And RFC 1535 got resolvers to try search lists last if there
> 	was a period in the name.   This removed the need for final
> 	periods for any legal fully qualified host name.

First, 1535 is informational, so it doesn't get anyone to do anything 
per se. The SHOULD therein is nonbinding.

Second, that document is very clear about applying to relative names, 
not FQDNs.

Finally, "." is a legal FQDN. So is "a.". The lack of an internal "." 
means that the "more stringent mechanism..implemented in BIND 4.9.2" 
discussed in 1535 does not apply.

I.e., 1535 describes an implementation decision to assume that:\
	<has internal "."> implies <is a FQDN>

The converse does not follow, i.e.:
	<is a FQDN> does NOT imply <has an internal ".">

> 	"hk" is not a legal fully qualified host name.

Agreed. "hk.", however, is.

 >       Demanding that
> 	applications support final dots to support uses that are outside
> 	of the original design scope is nonsensical.

What uses? Specifying that the trailing "." means FQDN is defined in the 
DNS spec (1034). Apps that interpret names as DNS names need to follow 
that spec. Period (pun intended).


Ietf mailing list