On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:18:25AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
That's at least as reliable as my (multi-dotted) home domain. :-)
I'm not sure what's not to like here. But then again, I may be blind.
The point is that it is NOT reliable. Whether it works
depends apon what names are matched in the search list. It
does work for some people some of the time. It does not
work for all of the world all of the time. "hk" is not
That statement is also true for hk.com, ibm.com, google.com, or any
other relative DNS name.
The site-dependent interpretation of the name is determined not by the
presence of dot within the name but its absence from the end. "hk." is
as global as "hk.com." with respect to the search list; "hk" and
"hk.com" are both relative names and their resolution is resolver
I don't buy "unreliable" as a diagnosis for that state of affairs. "hk"
operates exactly as any other DNS name with respect to search path. An
incautious user or clever DNS administrator can create a confusing state
of affairs with or without the interior dot.
(As Bill Manning hinted, there may be other parts of the resolution code
that are less reliable for names without a dot in them. That I might
buy as an argument for unreliability).=20
If you'd like to argue something more subjective like "confusing" or
even "misleading," you'll find no resistance from me.
http://www.isi.edu/~faber PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.=
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#=
The point of going to heirachical names (RFC 921) is to
remove abmiguity. "tld"s don't meet the definition of a
It is time that tld operators stopped mis-using the zones
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
Ietf mailing list