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

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 03 July 2008 00:07 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 3AC163A68B1; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:07:38 -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 5C3473A68B1 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 Q96g7Qom-oAQ for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc1-s20.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s20.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6361A3A689D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU137-W18 ([65.55.116.8]) by blu0-omc1-s20.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:07:44 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU137-W18376D2DBA85C8F712C06F93980@phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.75]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Mark Andrews <mark_andrews@isc.org>
Subject: RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:07:44 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200807022323.m62NNwVJ034275@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: Your message of <200807022323.m62NNwVJ034275@drugs.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2008 00:07:44.0768 (UTC) FILETIME=[D17EB800:01C8DCA0]
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, 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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0266250976=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Mark Andrews said:
 
"The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.We added ".ARPA" to all the single label hostnames as partof that process. The only hold over is "localhost" andthat is implemeted locally, not in the global DNS. No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld" or "user@tld"to work reliably. I suspect there are still mail configuationsaround that will re-write "user@tld" to user@tld.ARPA.Should we be writting a RFC which states that MX and addressrecords SHOULD NOT be added to the apex of a TLD zone?
 
Should we be writting a RFC which states that single labelhostnames/mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up "as is" inthe DNS?"
 
Both sound like good ideas to me.  
 
 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf