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

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:17:57PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Ted Faber wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:28:05PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > there are also protocol specifications that expect DNS names to have 
> > > dots in them.
> > One could argue that such protocols are not able to express all valid
> > domain names, which may be a feature. :-)
> The notion of a single-label fully-qualified DNS name being "valid" is 
> an odd one.   DNS, as far as I can tell, was always intended to be 
> federated, both in assignment and lookup.  The notion of having terminal 
> (basically, non NS) records at the root seems contraindicated by several 
> of the DNS design goals.
But there are no such non-NS records at the root.  The A record for the
host hk is on the .hk servers, not the root servers.  Conceptually, the
delegee controls the namespace at the root of the delegation.

This is exactly analogous to the practice of assigning an address to the
root of a delegated domain like isi.edu.  There are NS records in edu
pointing to isi servers and the A record for isi.edu lives inside the
delegated namespace, which is entirely consistent with federation.

> And given the recent interest in vanity TLDs and ICANN's apparent lack 
> of willingness to run the DNS for the benefit of all, maybe it's time 
> for IETF to remind people that single label TLDs are not actually 
> supposed to work.
There are plenty of reasons to argue against using TLDs as hostnames,
but I don't think consistency with the federation/delegation model is
one.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG

pgpfo6aiFXHW5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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