[164407] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: On topic of domains
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Sullivan)
Thu Jul 11 12:41:44 2013
In-Reply-To: <krmkg2$flc$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:41:33 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <asullivan@dyn.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
If the definition of "FQDN" in some RFCs (Informational or not) always
included the trailing dot, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But that's
not the case, so protocol slots have been established for "FQDNs" that are
actually domains qualified relative to the root. Since this ambiguity has
been around since the very dawn of the DNS, I suspect there is little
chance of re-educating everyone in the world about this.
A
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Chris Hills <chaz@chaz6.com> wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 15:27, Jon Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > After .nyc thread, thought this IAB announcement may be of interest.
> >
> >
> http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/iab-statement-dotless-domains-considered-harmful/
> >
> > -Jon
> >
>
> Whilst I am not a fan of dotless domains, as long as one uses the fully
> qualified domain name (e.g. http://ac./), there should not be any
> trouble using it in any sane software. It seems that most people aren't
> aware these days that a fqdn includes the trailing period (by definition).
>
>
>
