On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:23:58AM +1000, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 32 lines which said:
> No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld"; or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > to work reliably. [Mark, you used non-RFC2606 names, the IESG will put a DISCUSS against you.] I agree but it is not the point: an email adress like [EMAIL PROTECTED] is legal and works but not reliably (there are many stupid broken Web forms which refuse it and tell me it's not valid). http://example is legal and should work. If it does not, it may indicate a broken implementation. > I suspect there are still mail configuations > around that will re-write "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". There are many broken mail configurations. > Should we be writting a RFC which states that MX and address > records SHOULD NOT be added to the apex of a TLD zone? No. A TLD is a domain like any other and we should not write special rules for them. > Should we be writting a RFC which states that single label > hostnames/mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up "as is" in > the DNS? I hate special cases. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
