[Standards] Re: IDNA text for rfc3920bis

[Bruce Campbell]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Mridul wrote:

> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 08:46:43AM +0200, Matthias Wimmer wrote:
>> 
>>> Mridul schrieb:
>>> 
>>>> Just a query - can we have domain names which are not fully qualified ?
>> So according to rfc3920 a domain identifier can be an unqualified
>> hostname (i.e., a mere text label). We loosened this compared to RFC
>> 3920 because there is no good reason to say that you can't run an XMPP
>> server on a local network (or, for example, use unqualified hostnames
>> for components within an XMPP deployment).
>> 
> Hi,
>
> So in this case, how is S2S expected to interact with this ?

If you are running a jabber server on an unqualified domain, you aren't 
expected to be able to communicate to jabber servers using fully qualified 
domain names, unless they are somehow aware of your 
server-with-unqualified-domain (coordinated /etc/hosts, private DNS, etc).

<peeve>
Speaking with my DNS hat on, it would be really, really nice if people 
would read, and more importantly, follow RFC2606 before setting up 
services with unqualified domains, or used fully-qualified domains even if 
the service is 'never' going to be connected to the outside internet. 
All too often, the names set up for internal use are seen in queries 
at the root servers, crowding out the pitiful 20% or less of real, actual 
queries.
</peeve>

-- 
   Bruce Campbell.