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

From: Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso at MIT.EDU>, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org>, Ted Faber <faber at ISI.EDU>, ietf at ietf.org
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:32:32 -0400
In-reply-to: <4873AE46.6010906 at isi.edu>
References: <20080708020228.GC10677 at zod.isi.edu> <200807080254.m682sG2Q007427 at drugs.dv.isc.org> <20080708161335.GB2519 at zod.isi.edu> <4873948A.2040904 at network-heretics.com> <4873AE46.6010906 at isi.edu>

RFC1043 defines the dot. The fact that some apps don't recognize it is a

bug.


not when the application explicitly specifies that FQDNs are to be used.
in such cases the dot is superfluous.

Keith
_______________________________________________
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: Joe Touch

References:
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Mark Andrews
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Ted Faber
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Joe Touch

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.