Andrew, On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:15:23PM +1100, James Mitchell wrote: >> If deployed software does not work with a TLD, it is the TLD owner who >> loses. > I'm sorry, but that claim is arrant nonsense. We _all_ lose. The > IETF is supposed to be about interoperability, and if stuff breaks > because we have decided, "We don't care lalalalalala I can't hear > you there isn't a problem," then we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
I don't think anyone is doing this, rather it is the normal situation of trying to strike a balance between 100% backwards compatibility (which limits future innovation) and ignoring the installed base (which breaks things). > I think Joe's pragmatic approach is the right one: document right now > that whatever the restrictions might historically have been, we are > quite explicitly going to permit at the very least one class of > labels. I would agree that it is important to document existing reality and hence believe the draft should move forward. > If people feel strongly that in fact the TLD label restriction never > was there and should not be, then once this document is published you > all can go out and write the draft, "TLD label character restrictions > considered harmful", and pursue the publication of that as an RFC. In > the meantime, we have at least a technical document that makes clear > that certain things are permitted. +1 Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
