> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:23:58AM +1000, > Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx> wrote > a message of 32 lines which said: > > > No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld"; or "user@tld" > > to work reliably. > > [Mark, you used non-RFC2606 names, the IESG will put a DISCUSS against > you.] > > I agree but it is not the point: an email adress like > bortzmeyer+ietf@xxxxxx is legal and works but not reliably (there are > many stupid broken Web forms which refuse it and tell me it's not > valid). > > http://example is legal and should work. If it does not, it may > indicate a broken implementation. But where should it resolve to? "example.example.net." or "example."? Under what circumstances? > > I suspect there are still mail configuations > > around that will re-write "user@tld" to "user@xxxxxxxx". > > There are many broken mail configurations. > > > 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. A TLD is a domain like any other and we should not write special > rules for them. Names with and without dots already have different semantics. > > Should we be writting a RFC which states that single label > > hostnames/mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up "as is" in > > the DNS? > > I hate special cases. TLDs are already a special cases in so many ways. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf