> I have to congratulate you on one of the most subtle > proposals to destroy the Internet that I have seen > in a long time. More on that in a moment.
Maybe you should read and understand the proposal before commenting on it. I realize that it's difficult to actually be sure you understand a single sentence before writing several paragraphs - but hey, it's not much to ask. (hint: It doesn't affect ICANN or the root servers at all.) > So who's going to explain to the Vatican that, sorry, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't work any more? Or will the US take > issue when addresses @as, which is part of the US, > don't work? Or France about @gp and @mq, which are > as much part of France as Hawaii is part of the US? I'd be very surprised if any of these work as-is, with any reliability. They certainly won't work for email. The assumption that fully qualified domain names contain at least one '.' is widespread in both protocol specifications and implementations. > I'm impressed, it never occurred to me that one could > cause this much damage with such an arcane change to > name resolution. If you can cite verifiable evidence that even a single case that works reliably now, will cease to work, I'll concede that there is at least a hint of merit to your argument. e.g. an actual email address or URL that uses a single-label domain name. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
