Re: Security and suffixes (Re: Cite on DNS-related traffic.)

  *> From owner-ietf-outbound(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Fri Jun  2 13:09:06 2000
  *> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 15:41:48 -0400
  *> From: John C Klensin <klensin(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
  *> Subject: Re: Security and suffixes (Re: Cite on DNS-related traffic.)
  *> In-reply-to: <3937F54F(_dot_)F0D9FFF8(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
  *> To: Joe Touch <touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU>
  *> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
  *> MIME-version: 1.0
  *> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.0 (Win32)
  *> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
  *> Content-disposition: inline
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> X-Loop: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> X-Lines: 15
  *> 
  *> 
  *> 
  *> --On Friday, June 02, 2000 10:56 AM -0700 Joe Touch
  *> <touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU> wrote:
  *> 
  *> > The use of the trailing dot (www.netscape.com.) remains
  *> > a useful way to force the resolver to avoid suffix extensions.
  *> 
  *> And a useful way to induce massive confusion, since many
  *> applications do not recognize the hack and won't pass it to a
  *> resolver (which, of course, may or may not recognize it either).
  *> 
  *>    john
  *> 

John,

Hack??  I will admit to being largely out of touch with this issue, but
I recall the discussions in the IAB while the DNS was under
development.  Far from being a hack, I believe it was an architectured
solution to the problem.  It is documented (at least) in section
6.1.4.3 of RFC 1123.

Bob Braden