> I understand the objection to MX records in TLDs based on the past
> history of how single label hostnames were (and, as Mark points out,
> undoubtedly still are) handled. If it were possible to put that
> aside, would you have any other objection to single label hostnames?
> I know that at least some of the interest in new gTLDs has been
> expressed by companies that like the idea of using a globally-
> recognized trademark as a TLD - for example,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" (not to imply that IBM is one of the companies
> that has expressed this sort of interest).
You still have the issue that "telnet host" will suddenly
become "telnet tld" when "host" is not longer in the search
list because it has been deprecated. This then lets "tld"
harvest username / password pairs etc.
Every protocol has its own set of gotchas. Email was just
a example everyone should be able to recognise.
Note: "tld" does not meet the requirements of a Hierarchical
Names as specified in RFC 921. Hierarchical Names are what
we now call globally unique names.
Trying to treat "tld" as a heirachical name does not work.
> I'm familiar with <draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt> and understand
> the importance of using only FQDNs in SMTP exchanges given that "[i]n
> the case of a top-level domain used by itself in an email address, a
> single string is used without any dots." What I'm interested in is
> any reason to proscribe the use of a TLD as a single label hostname
> (particularly for email addresses) other than the fact that there is
> software out there that will interpret it incorrectly -
>
> - Lyman
>
> On Jul 2, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> >
> > Mark Andrews said:
> >
> > "The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.We added
> > ".ARPA" to all the single label hostnames as partof that process.
> > The only hold over is "localhost" andthat is implemeted locally,
> > not in the global DNS. No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld";
> > or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"to work reliably. I suspect there are still mail
> > configuationsaround that will re-write "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] we be writting a RFC which states that MX and
> > addressrecords SHOULD NOT be added to the apex of a TLD zone?
> >
> > Should we be writting a RFC which states that single labelhostnames/
> > mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up "as is" inthe DNS?"
> >
> > Both sound like good ideas to me.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
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
