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

Keith Moore wrote:
> > > > 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.
It was not. But when other programs started using the DNS, it was *they* 
that endorsed what the DNS as per that doc.
> I believe it always was inevitable that different apps would use DNS (or 
> any shared naming facility) in slightly different ways.
Yes. Some ways are compliant, others are not.

> 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 
Who doesn't? If you're saying they could be more than one host, fine. If 
you're saying they're not hosts any more, I disagree.
If you're intent on saying "the Internet is whatever anyone says it is 
on any given day" - as the above suggests - I appreciate your confusion. 
I prefer to consider the Internet as being based on standards, and 
reliably working when - and *because* - we adhere to them.
Joe

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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