Zefram <zefram(_at_)fysh(_dot_)org> writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
one added some text to clarify that it was actually intended to allow
for zero length dnsname's (to denote the DNS root).
This is technically correct, according to RFC 1034, but will be confusing.
"dns:" intuitively looks incomplete. It's more conventional to name
the root domain in absolute form, as ".". An interesting comparison:
the "dig" DNS lookup tool from the BIND folks doesn't accept "" as a
domain name; it insists on the root domain being specified as ".".
So I argue that requiring the root domain to be represented as "." in the
context of the URI, forbidding a zero-length <dnsname>, will make for a
clearer protocol, more likely to be implemented correctly. This isn't
an absolute matter, though; both versions of the protocol are workable.
The current specification allows for both dns: and dns:., and they
refer to the same thing, the root. People used to dig syntax will
have no problems, and people working with strict RFC 1034 conforming
applications will also have no problems. Is there a need to forbid
zero length dnsname's? I don't see what benefit that would bring,
could you please elaborate?