> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) <kevin.da...@fcagroup.com> > wrote: > > In retrospect, the definition of the “http” and “https” schemes (i.e. RFC > 7230) should have probably enumerated clearly which name registries were > acceptable for those schemes,
I generally try to avoid enumerating things that are known to be false. All URI schemes that use authority intentionally refer to the local mechanism of name lookup, even if that name lookup only uses DNS as the last in a long line of alternative registries. The client is responsible for choosing a mechanism which produces a correct mapping for any given authority, regardless of whether that is defined for them by /etc/host, WINS, DNS, third-party https-based DNS lookup, etc. The folks referring to resources using those schemes are responsible for making those references unambiguous, usually by naming convention rather than any specific set of syntax rules. ....Roy
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
