Keith Moore wrote:
Many, many working groups have looked at the problems associated with relative names and determined that they're not acceptable. It's a "bug" that relative names are forbidden in these apps, nor that the final "." is implicit and in many cases disallowed. These are carefully considered design features. (for instance, forbidding the final "." makes it simpler to compare domain names for equivalence.)It's nonsensical for an application to decide that relative names are unacceptable, but to require users to input names as relative.it's nonsensical for you to unilaterally declare that such names are relative, when well over two decades of practice indicates otherwise.
I didn't declare it; 1034 did. Apps misbehaving over arbitrary periods of time don't make it otherwise.
(and remember, some of these apps predate DNS and the whole notion of relative names)
Those apps bought into the DNS spec (or started violating it) when they tied into the DNS - regardless of what they did with names before.
it's almost as if the very concept of relative names in DNS is itself a bug - especially if you insist that handling of DNS names be absolutely uniform from one app to the next. IMHO they cause far more problems than they're worth.
I agree that relative names are probably not worth the trouble, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to type a "." at the end of any DNS name. DNS names have a syntax; things that take DNS names as input and/or tie into the DNS protocol need to use that syntax, not presume to redefine it.
Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf