Keith Moore wrote:
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.Yes - but you're the one declaring that 1034 trumps decades of later work. Normally the assumption would be that work can be revised as bugs are found or conditions change over time, and that things that had achieved IETF consensus since 1034 was published would be considered at least equal, and often superior, to earlier work.I don't think 1034 was handed down from a mountain on stone tablets.
It was not. But when other programs started using the DNS, it was *they* that endorsed what the DNS as per that doc.
I believe it always was inevitable that different apps would use DNS (or any shared naming facility) in slightly different ways.
Yes. Some ways are compliant, others are not.
Yes this is somewhat confusing, but DNS (like the rest of the Internet) has been stretched far beyond its original design goals or scale. For instance, we don't interpret DNS names as hostnames any more
Who doesn't? If you're saying they could be more than one host, fine. If you're saying they're not hosts any more, I disagree.
If you're intent on saying "the Internet is whatever anyone says it is on any given day" - as the above suggests - I appreciate your confusion. I prefer to consider the Internet as being based on standards, and reliably working when - and *because* - we adhere to them.
Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf