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.
Yes - but you're the one declaring that 1034 trumps decades of later
work. Normally the assumption would be that work can be revised as bugs
are found or conditions change over time, and that things that had
achieved IETF consensus since 1034 was published would be considered at
least equal, and often superior, to earlier work.
I don't think 1034 was handed down from a mountain on stone tablets.
I believe it always was inevitable that different apps would use DNS (or
any shared naming facility) in slightly different ways. Yes this is
somewhat confusing, but DNS (like the rest of the Internet) has been
stretched far beyond its original design goals or scale. For instance,
we don't interpret DNS names as hostnames any more - because in the
modern world the concept of "host name" is irrelevant in the vast
majority of cases.
And maybe this provides an illustration of how difficult it is for us to
use service protocols consistently from one application to another (it's
not hard to find other examples). But such difficulty is real and it
reflects genuine differences in requirements from one app to the next.
Arguably 1034 didn't even address the needs of apps existing at that
time (email being one of those apps), much less apps that came later.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf