Re: [mif] [dnsext] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

I think we can skirt this rat-hole if we separate the two following
distinct cases:

Case A: "foo"
Case B: "foo." (with terminating "dot").

Case B meets the technical requirements of a Fully Qualified Domain
Name, structurally speaking.
Case A does not.

Case A is a "bare name", case B is not.

If we stick to the notions of FQDN versus anything else, we can avoid
entering the rat-hole, IMHO.

(I.e., We don't need to get into any issues over the number of labels
in an FQDN; an FQDN does not require treatment, special or otherwise;
etc., etc.,)

Brian Dickson

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:19 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> It might that IETF should consider "bare names" out of its scope, except perhaps to say that they're not DNS names, they don't have to necessarily be mappable to DNS names, and that their use and behavior is host and application-dependent.
>>
>> Can we please not redefine what a "DNS name" is to meet a particular agenda?
>
> I wasn't trying to do so.
>
>> Isn't it sufficient to say a 'bare name' does not conform to a hostname as defined in RFC 952 and modified by RFCs 1122?
>
> Probably.  I'm just suggesting that trying to nail down the behavior of such names is probably a rathole as well as likely to cause significant disruption.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>