On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:18:25AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > That's at least as reliable as my (multi-dotted) home domain. :-) > > > > I'm not sure what's not to like here. But then again, I may be blind. > > The point is that it is NOT reliable. Whether it works > depends apon what names are matched in the search list. It > does work for some people some of the time. It does not > work for all of the world all of the time. "hk" is not > globally unique. That statement is also true for hk.com, ibm.com, google.com, or any other relative DNS name. The site-dependent interpretation of the name is determined not by the presence of dot within the name but its absence from the end. "hk." is as global as "hk.com." with respect to the search list; "hk" and "hk.com" are both relative names and their resolution is resolver dependent. I don't buy "unreliable" as a diagnosis for that state of affairs. "hk" operates exactly as any other DNS name with respect to search path. An incautious user or clever DNS administrator can create a confusing state of affairs with or without the interior dot. (As Bill Manning hinted, there may be other parts of the resolution code that are less reliable for names without a dot in them. That I might buy as an argument for unreliability). If you'd like to argue something more subjective like "confusing" or even "misleading," you'll find no resistance from me. -- Ted Faber http://www.isi.edu/~faber PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
Attachment:
pgplbfYMfULM6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf