Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks
2004-08-02 15:59:20
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:37:29 -0400, Bruce Lilly <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
It says
".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
glance are invalid.
That is not a recommendation for anything -- it is a statement of intent;
intent for use "online" and not via hard-coding -- and is certainly not
a recommendation for use in address fields.
It is a statement of what that TLD is intended to be used for, with the
expectation that it may well turn up online - i.e. in actual
communications using assorted internet protocols.
However, if you want to see what the actual authors of RFC 2606 intended
it to mean, you might care to look at
<http://purl.net/net/msgid/aacu37$clc$1(_at_)krell(_dot_)zikzak(_dot_)de>,
which not only confirms its appropriateness within Netnews, quoting the
vary same texts I have been quoting at you, but also indicates that
Netnews seems to have been one of the protocols particularly in mind when
the .invalid TLD was invented.
You have utterly missed the point of RFC 3696. The point is that
hard-coding domain names is foolhardy
No, that is exactly what RFC 3696 does _not_ say. You have already
presumed to understand what the authors of RFC 2606 intended to say, and
been proved wrong. Do you want me to write to John Klensin and ask him
what he really meant in RFC 3696?
... Now,
IANA doesn't control TLDs, ICANN does; whether you have more or less
faith in ICANN vs. IANA is another matter...
I have not that much faith in ICANN, but I cannot imagine that they would
be so stupid as ever to create a real working TLD with the name ".invalid".
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At
Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks,
Charles Lindsey <=
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey |
Next by Date: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly |
Next by Thread: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|