> 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.
But where should it resolve to? "example.example.net."
or "example."? Under what circumstances?
> > 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.
Names with and without dots already have different semantics.
> > 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.
TLDs are already a special cases in so many ways.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
