-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
toplabel =
( *alphanum alpha *alphanum ) /
( 1*alphanum "-" *( alphanum / "-" ) alphanum )
Very good! Does anyone DISagree that this is equivalent to the USEFOR
definition?
It doesn't exclude singleton TLDs (see my other message posted before
I saw this) [...]
True, in that regard it is not equivalent. However, IMO the only technical
reason for the definition of TLD labels to be ANY stricter than that for
non-TLD labels is to guarantee distinction from IPv4 addresses. For that,
the "not a single character" restriction is unnecessary. Is there a
_technical_ reason for the "not a single character" restriction?
If there is indeed no technical reason for it, then I think we can safely
leave it to ICANN not to register any such TLDs and be done with it.
BTW, has anyone noticed that we don't actually codify the 63 characters
label length limit in the ABNF grammar? Just one more detail (similar to
"not only digits") that doesn't _have_ to be codified in the grammar, IMO.
(BTW, Frank, don't take it personally, but I think your use of the term
"singleton TLD" is inappropriate and confusing.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEL7W6wL7PKlBZWjsRAi5oAJ9o/pGgqvdFw8VEbqzySy1LEMFR6wCffFmq
ZSL4iTn4c6P75M43J3i1J20=
=ZI65
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com