I think we can skirt this rat-hole if we separate the two following distinct cases:
Case A: "foo" Case B: "foo." (with terminating "dot"). Case B meets the technical requirements of a Fully Qualified Domain Name, structurally speaking. Case A does not. Case A is a "bare name", case B is not. If we stick to the notions of FQDN versus anything else, we can avoid entering the rat-hole, IMHO. (I.e., We don't need to get into any issues over the number of labels in an FQDN; an FQDN does not require treatment, special or otherwise; etc., etc.,) Brian Dickson On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com> wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:19 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >>> It might that IETF should consider "bare names" out of its scope, except >>> perhaps to say that they're not DNS names, they don't have to necessarily >>> be mappable to DNS names, and that their use and behavior is host and >>> application-dependent. >> >> Can we please not redefine what a "DNS name" is to meet a particular agenda? > > I wasn't trying to do so. > >> Isn't it sufficient to say a 'bare name' does not conform to a hostname as >> defined in RFC 952 and modified by RFCs 1122? > > Probably. I'm just suggesting that trying to nail down the behavior of such > names is probably a rathole as well as likely to cause significant disruption. > > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dns...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
