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

Keith Moore wrote:
...
> Many, many working groups have looked at the problems associated with 
> relative names and determined that they're not acceptable.  It's a "bug" 
> that relative names are forbidden in these apps, nor that the final "." 
> is implicit and in many cases disallowed.  These are carefully 
> considered design features.  (for instance, forbidding the final "." 
> makes it simpler to compare domain names for equivalence.)
It's nonsensical for an application to decide that relative names are 
unacceptable, but to require users to input names as relative.
An explicit trailing '.' has either no impact on comparison or can only 
help. If all names have the '.' impicitly, it can be chopped off as 
redundant when it is provided by the user. If the '.' is not implicit, 
then you're preventing the user from providing it.
All the '.' does is inhibit the resolver from trying a list of suffixes 
in succession; its presence makes resolution and comparison easier, not 
harder.
Joe

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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