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

Keith Moore wrote:
> > > Many, many working groups have looked at the problems associated with 
> > > relative names and determined that they're not acceptable.  It's a 
> > > "bug" that relative names are forbidden in these apps, nor that the 
> > > final "." is implicit and in many cases disallowed.  These are 
> > > carefully considered design features.  (for instance, forbidding the 
> > > final "." makes it simpler to compare domain names for equivalence.)
> > It's nonsensical for an application to decide that relative names are 
> > unacceptable, but to require users to input names as relative.
> it's nonsensical for you to unilaterally declare that such names are 
> relative, when well over two decades of practice indicates otherwise.
I didn't declare it; 1034 did. Apps misbehaving over arbitrary periods 
of time don't make it otherwise.
> (and remember, some of these apps predate DNS and the whole notion of 
> relative names)
Those apps bought into the DNS spec (or started violating it) when they 
tied into the DNS - regardless of what they did with names before.
> it's almost as if the very concept of relative names in DNS is itself a 
> bug - especially if you insist that handling of DNS names be absolutely 
> uniform from one app to the next.  IMHO they cause far more problems 
> than they're worth.
I agree that relative names are probably not worth the trouble, but that 
doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to type a "." at the end of any 
DNS name. DNS names have a syntax; things that take DNS names as input 
and/or tie into the DNS protocol need to use that syntax, not presume to 
redefine it.
Joe

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf