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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

> 
> --YD3LsXFS42OYHhNZ
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:47:15AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >=20
> > > The site-dependent interpretation of the name is determined not by the
> > > presence of dot within the name but its absence from the end.
> >=20
> > 	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 "hk.com."

	"hk." is not a syntactically valid hostname (RFC 952).
	"hk." is not a syntactically valid mail domain.
	Periods at the end are not legal.

	RFC 1035 has *nothing* to do with defining what is legal
	as a hostname.

	Mark

> --=20
> Ted Faber
> http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.=
> asc
> Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#=
> SIG
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf