Most of the other application (besides dns) presume a single class, IN, hence the URL presumption of "DNS name" will -always- be in the IN class. Technically imprecise and sloppy, but pragmatically it works... until some loons come along and do something creative with classes. Then all bets are off. RFC 1034 also uses IN in its examples and most folks forget inheritence rules.
/Wm On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matt...@kerwin.net.au> wrote: > On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > > Who owns a name is a different question to what machines serve the > > <name,type,class> tuple and how do you reach those machines. There > > is absolutely no reason why the zones <name,IN> and <name,CLASS56> > > need to be served by the same machines. There is a argument for > > them both being under control of the same people. > > > > Mark > > > > Hi, I'm jumping in at a random time with a possibly dumb question, but > the talk of <name,type> and <name,type,class> tuples got me wondering > about representation in general, and URLs in particular. > > RFCs 3986 and 7230 say[*] that every 'host' in a HTTP URL that looks > like a DNS name is a DNS name, and that they have to be resolved to IP > addresses if you want to fetch them, but they don't talk meaningfully > about how to do that resolution. Given that we always assume class=IN > (not to mention type=A|AAAA via happy eyeballs), how would we go about > practically presenting an alternative class in things like URLs? > (Registering a new "alt-http" URL scheme doesn't strike me as a great > idea.) > > Because it's all well and good setting up your own .org hierarchy > under class=FOO or whatever, but there's not much point if you can't > send people to www.not-icann.org using it. Unless you don't want to > expose your new hierarchy to the web ...? > > Cheers > > > [*] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2 : > > """A registered name intended for lookup in the DNS uses the syntax > defined in Section 3.5 of [RFC1034] and Section 2.1 of [RFC1123].""" > > I read that as: "if it matches RFC1034 (and isn't overridden by the > specific URI scheme's rules) it's a DNS name." It could be read the > other way, but that just adds more assumptions. > > -- > Matthew Kerwin > http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/ > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
