Chris Lewis wrote:
I rather like dnsbl.test. What's the reason for including a dot?
"test" is a pseudo-TLD reserved for tests in RFC 2606. "dnsbltest"
could be the next TLD ICANN will create, after "xxx" presumably.
Underscores are illegal in DNS names, hence a good idea.
All octets from 0x00 to 0xFF are legal in DNS names. ITYM illegal
in a label of a host, because underscore is not LDH (letter, digit,
hyphen). A DNSBL test entry is not really a host.
But, if they're illegal, the test wouldn't work either.
Nslookup can do underscores without trouble, gethostbyname can do,
what do you have in mind where underscore wouldn't work ?
it's probably a bad idea to explicitly mandate a practise in
violation of existing RFC.
Underscores only violate existing RFCs if you'd claim that it is
valid in host names used for say SMTP. Avoiding such host names
is the idea of Doug's proposal, there are several RFCs and drafts
using the same idea.
For the "C" in BCP 127.0.0.2 is good. If you are determined to
make up new stuff _dnsbl.test or similar is in theory fine. I've
no idea how you will get hundreds of DNSBLs to adopt it.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg