On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:01:30PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:32:10PM -0700,
moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com wrote:
If you can cite verifiable evidence that even a single case that works
reliably now, will cease to work, I'll concede that there is at least
^^^^^^^^
a hint of merit to your argument. e.g. an actual email address or
URL that uses a single-label domain name.
zod:~$ ping hk
PING hk (203.119.2.28): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 203.119.2.28: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=183.582 ms
% ping hk.
PING hk (203.119.2.28) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.hkdnr.hk (203.119.2.28): icmp_seq=1 ttl=238 time=265 ms
64 bytes from www.hkdnr.hk (203.119.2.28): icmp_seq=2 ttl=238 time=265 ms
Not very reliably, I think. :-)
Umm, hk. resolves to the same address from both our machines and is
pingable (modulo a single packet loss from yours, depending on how your
ping counts) from both. http://hk pulls up a web page on a machine with
the same address. (www.hkdnr.hk is an alias for hk. - the same machine;
you're not being redirected.)
That's at least as reliable as my (multi-dotted) home domain. :-)
I'm not sure what's not to like here. But then again, I may be blind.
--
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
pgpEZBQDqkokZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf