Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >>one added some text to clarify that it was actually intended to allow >>for zero length dnsname's (to denote the DNS root). > > This is technically correct, according to RFC 1034, but will be confusing. > "dns:" intuitively looks incomplete. It's more conventional to name > the root domain in absolute form, as ".". An interesting comparison: > the "dig" DNS lookup tool from the BIND folks doesn't accept "" as a > domain name; it insists on the root domain being specified as ".". > > So I argue that requiring the root domain to be represented as "." in the > context of the URI, forbidding a zero-length <dnsname>, will make for a > clearer protocol, more likely to be implemented correctly. This isn't > an absolute matter, though; both versions of the protocol are workable. The current specification allows for both dns: and dns:., and they refer to the same thing, the root. People used to dig syntax will have no problems, and people working with strict RFC 1034 conforming applications will also have no problems. Is there a need to forbid zero length dnsname's? I don't see what benefit that would bring, could you please elaborate? Thanks, Simon