On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Note: I trimmed the cc:s down to just the lists, but if we're going to > pursue this dicussion we probably ought to follow up in mif, since > that's where the draft comes from. That's why I set reply-to. Also, > I sent this first from the wrong address, so apologies to those who > see it twice. > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 07:23:15AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > >> I don't see why IETF should give a flying *#&(*#$ what the owners of >> brand-name gTLDs want. Brand-name gTLDs are an exceedingly stupid >> idea, and treating single label names as anything other than local >> abbreviations flies in the face of 25+ years of practice. > > If you said, "25+ years of practice illustrating how broken the > search-path mechanism is," I'd agree with you.
I agree that search paths are somewhat broken. What's not broken is the idea of using single-label names as local names. > I think it is largely true that single-label domain names are going to > fail to work in all sorts of amusing ways that will surprise gullible > people who forked over a pile of cash for the privilege of registering > them. Nevertheless, the search path mechanism has never worked very > well and is notoriously unreliable in the face of split-brain DNS. split-brain DNS is an abomination that should be eradicated from the planet. > Still, too many people continue to rely on the search path for this > document to be the place to deprecate it. But I agree with Ray (and > apparently Paul Vixie) that the mechanism ought to go away. I don't think it should necessarily go away. But perhaps it needs to be better defined, and/or more advice needs to be given to applications about how to deal with single-label names. > Now that Ray has mentioned it, however, perhaps a sentence along these > lines in the second paragraph of 4.6 would be useful: > > It should be noted that the DNS search list mechanism may cause > surprising results when used with more than one network at a time. > > That addresses the other point that Ray was making: search list-style > bare names are often broken if you're not on the right network, and > the point of this draft is precisely that you're _not_ on only one > network, so it isn't clear what "the right network" is. and sometimes, single-label names are set up to work correctly on multiple networks - the salient point being that the meaning of the name might be inherently context-sensitive. >> The best thing that IETF could do is to make sure that use of >> single-label gTLDs is so unreliable that no megacorporation would >> dare use them. > > And clearly that will work, because the IETF has a long record of > success of standing before the tide and telling it to stop. this isn't a tide. this is a small number of parties bent on abuse of the Internet. they deserve to fail. Keith _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
