>
>
> --On Tuesday, 08 July, 2008 11:47 +1000 Mark Andrews
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> The site-dependent interpretation of the name is determined
> >> not by the presence of dot within the name but its absence
> >> from the end.
> >
> > No. Please go and re-read RFC 921.
>
> This is the same RFC 921 that
>
> * is listed in the RFC Index as "Status: UNKNOWN"
Unknown doesn't mean irrelevent.
> * was not even examined in the "requirements" review
> that led up to RFC 1123 and is not referenced there.
RFC 1123 -> RFC 952 -> RFC 921
> * primarily talks about an implementation schedule and
> transition plan, not about long-term stable
> interpretations.
> Isn't claiming that as an authority in 2008 a bit of a stretch?
No. Old does not mean irrelevent.
> Especially since, as Ted Farber points out, text in 1035 itself
> seems to contradict your reading of that particular section?
No. RFC 1035 applies to domain names, not hostnames.
> I believe that 952 is almost equally irrelevant wrt this
> argument. YMMD, of course.
RFC 952 is the latest rfc which defines the syntax of a
hostname.
> As Keith points out, there are lots and lots of reasons to avoid
> believing that dot-less strings will be interpreted as domain
> names consistently and in the way that users will expect. Most
> of them have to do with handling of names in applications, which
> tends to get strange in edge cases and stranger when one relies
> too much on having specific contents in resolver configuration
> files. The mere fact of inconsistent (but valid)
> interpretations in different applications or configurations (or
> even implementations of the same
> application) may be more than enough reason to avoid these
> things, or at least be very careful about them. But claiming
> 921 as an authority isn't one of the reasons, IMO.
>
> john
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
