-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Joe Touch wrote: | | | Keith Moore wrote: | | | | | | Ted Faber wrote: | |> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:54:16PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: | |>> "hk." is not a syntactically valid hostname (RFC 952). | |>> "hk." is not a syntactically valid mail domain. | |>> Periods at the end are not legal. | |>> | |>> RFC 1035 has *nothing* to do with defining what is legal | |>> as a hostname. | |> | |> Fair enough. | |> By RFC952 standards "hk" is a perfectly fine hostname. | |> | |> By RFC1035 standards, if you look it or any other DNS name up using the | |> DNS resolver, that resolver will treat the name as relative unless it | |> ends with a dot. Arguing that hk is an unreliable hostname if you | |> look it up as a relative pathname is pretty much the same as arguing | |> that www.isi.deterlab.net is an unreliable hostname. Both of them are | |> subject to the search path without that trailing dot. | | | | RFC1035 may recognize the trailing dot, but (for better or worse) many | | applications do not recognize it, and some explicitly forbid it. | | RFC1043 defines the dot. The fact that some apps don't recognize it is a sorry -- 1034. | bug. Given its impact, let's not call it a feature or BCP. | | Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIc662E5f5cImnZrsRAtHEAJ9GE/dlSLqM8mgdTOFYrFVyASZ13QCeJWWe l/zcB3DS4rM8lA1pd67/QTs= =o8cK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf