David Conrad wrote: > <digression> > >> dotless names were never contemplated as endpoints, even in the HOSTS.TXT era > > Err, what? > > All names were dotless in the "HOSTS.TXT era" (well, depending on what you > mean by the "HOSTS.TXT era" -- I'm assuming pre-RFC 881) and they were all > endpoints.
By RFC 952, there were no dotless names in HOSTS.TXT, even though the grammar allowed it. >> the raw >> fact of the matter is that a dotless name should _never_ be accidentally >> presentation-reachable. > > I'd be OK dotless names if there is a mutual understanding of the > implications of those name for relevant parties. For example, I think it'd be > fun to move the root servers out of root-servers.net and into the root, i.e.: > > $ORIGIN . > ... > a IN A 198.41.0.4 > b IN A 192.228.79.201 > ... i'd really like to see those as A.ROOT-SERVERS, B.ROOT-SERVERS, etc, where ROOT-SERVERS. was an empty non-terminal (not a delegation point). so, in-zone, but not dotless. because most of my daily-use tools won't let me ping "A" or "A." since they are both treated as local names (to be found in YP/NIS or /etc/hosts or the Windows "hosts" file), and i like pinging root name servers. -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
