Re: On topic of domains

[Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net>]

On 7/11/2013 11:41 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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.

I seem to recall back in the day being annoyed that some interfaces 
would not allow the trailing dot.

My failing memory does not provide and example.

(A test of Firefox and a URL I had just used, modified works. 
en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Server_Message_Block #)
> 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).


--
Requiescas in pace o email           Two identifying characteristics
                                        of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio      Infallibility, and the ability to
                                        learn from their mistakes.
                                          (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)