Julian Mehnle wrote:
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.
Yes, I didn't invent that, it's in an ugly 2606bis draft...
Is there a _technical_ reason for the "not a single
character" restriction?
..ask ICANN, the author, or John - I accepted that it could
make sense for non-technical reasons.
we can safely leave it to ICANN not to register any such
TLDs and be done with it.
Sure, OTOH it's a small derivation from two drafts I know.
has anyone noticed that we don't actually codify the 63
characters label length limit in the ABNF grammar?
Yes, another example where - as you said - "anal retentive"
syntax isn't necessary for our purposes, we mention that in
the prose.
Just one more detail (similar to "not only digits") that
doesn't _have_ to be codified in the grammar, IMO.
"Not only digits" affects the root servers, I could dig for
a draft discussing this issue. IIRC they even considered
to create pseudo TLDs to reduce the load for this crap.
(BTW, Frank, don't take it personally, but I think your
use of the term "singleton TLD" is inappropriate and
confusing.)
Straight from 3066bis, and it wasn't me who proposed this
term for a single <alphanum>. It's also used in Bridge
(the card game) terminology. What do you think it means ?
Bye, Frank
-------
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