On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/21/2011 08:13, Keith Moore wrote: >> Names containing "." should not be subject to search lists. Given a >> name like foo.bar, there's no reliable way to tell whether "bar" is a >> TLD or a subdomain of something in the search list. > > I've been following this discussion, mostly in the hopes that it would > go away. :) However since the discussion keeps circling I thought I'd > throw in my 2 cents. > > 1. I think we're all in agreement that dot-terminated names (e.g., > example.) should not be subject to search lists. I personally don't have > any problems with any document mentioning that this is the expected > behavior.
agree. however there are standard protocols for which a trailing dot in a domain name is a syntax error. > 2. I think most of us agree that a bare label (no dots, e.g., example) > will almost certainly be subject to a search list. My suggestion would > be that the common behavior be described in a "here be dragons" format, > without attempting to be proscriptive. mostly agree. I don't think "will almost certainly be subject to a search list" is accurate, though I do think "may be subject to a search list" is reasonable. > 3. For hostnames with a dot (although not necessarily ending in a TLD, > such as foo.example) I think it's reasonable to say that the desired > behavior is to first try to look them up "as is" without applying a > search list, and if that fails to then apply the search list; with the > same caveat as above, descriptive language for this document instead of > proscriptive. Strongly disagree. That would leave users without a protocol-independent way of unambiguously specifying "this is a fully-qualified domain name". The practice of applying search lists to names with "."s in them needs to die. Keith _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
