Mark Andrews wrote:
It's nonsensical for an application to decide that relative names are
unacceptable, but to require users to input names as relative.
it's nonsensical for you to unilaterally declare that such names are
relative, when well over two decades of practice indicates otherwise.
>>
I didn't declare it; 1034 did.
And RFC 1535 got resolvers to try search lists last if there
was a period in the name. This removed the need for final
periods for any legal fully qualified host name.
First, 1535 is informational, so it doesn't get anyone to do anything
per se. The SHOULD therein is nonbinding.
Second, that document is very clear about applying to relative names,
not FQDNs.
Finally, "." is a legal FQDN. So is "a.". The lack of an internal "."
means that the "more stringent mechanism..implemented in BIND 4.9.2"
discussed in 1535 does not apply.
I.e., 1535 describes an implementation decision to assume that:\
<has internal "."> implies <is a FQDN>
The converse does not follow, i.e.:
<is a FQDN> does NOT imply <has an internal ".">
"hk" is not a legal fully qualified host name.
Agreed. "hk.", however, is.
> Demanding that
applications support final dots to support uses that are outside
of the original design scope is nonsensical.
What uses? Specifying that the trailing "." means FQDN is defined in the
DNS spec (1034). Apps that interpret names as DNS names need to follow
that spec. Period (pun intended).
Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf