Mark Andrews wrote: > The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.
As noted in RFC 2821 as "one dot required" syntax, also mentioned in RFC 3696. Recently *overruled* by 2821bis. > No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld"; or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > to work reliably. Certainly not expect, but some gave it nevertheless a try. My bastard browser from hell let's me say <http://museum./> (note trailing dot). > I suspect there are still mail configuations around that > will re-write "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". They didn't note that RFC 2821 upgraded the 821 examples, sh*t happens... <eg> > 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, there are enough TLDs disagreeing with this idea... > Should we be writting a RFC which states that single > label hostnames/mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up > "as is" in the DNS? ...the 2821bis Last Call ended months ago, and "one dot required" was discussed long enough. Change this again, and I'll scream. Frank -- Repost, apparently my first attempt didn't make it. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
