spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: RFC 4408 <draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.txt> -- AUTH48 changes

2006-04-02 04:38:05

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:

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.

There are several working TLDs with single character (like. x.com)

BTW, has anyone noticed that we don't actually codify the 63 characters
label length limit in the ABNF grammar?

Don't. There are reasons to believe the limit will be removed in the future
(where as no digits-only probably will not be).

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.)

Only to object-oriented programmers ... But yes, lets just use
"single letter TLD" as everyone else does.

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net

-------
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