Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org>
To: Ted Faber <faber at ISI.EDU>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso at MIT.EDU>, moore at network-heretics.com, ietf at ietf.org
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:47:15 +1000
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:32:42 MST." <20080708013242.GB10677 at zod.isi.edu>

> The site-dependent interpretation of the name is determined not by the
> presence of dot within the name but its absence from the end.

	No.  Please go and re-read RFC 921.

>  "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.
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Ted Faber

References:
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Ted Faber

Prev by Date: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Next by Date: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Previous by thread: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Next by thread: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.