Subject: [salud] Do we need the FQDN to be followed by at least one label?

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:35:19 +0100

Hi,

We agreed that the FQDN must be followed by at least
one label, because the FQDN alone does not
specify anything in particular (it  was my own proposal at some time.)
  See  5) in Dale's message
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/current/msg00290.html

However, it seems to me that this is no longer true. We changed the
syntax for some times since then. E.g.
<urn:alert:source:[email-masked](2013)> or
<urn:alert:source:[email-masked]> make sense.

Note: Paul already agreed to this statement.

Thanks a lot
Laura

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:26:12 -0500 (EST)

> From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
> 

Yes, I agree.  The real condition is that if there is an FQDN, there
must be at least one label that logically follows it.  But of course,
in the syntax "...:[email-masked]:...", the label "foo" does
*logically* follow the FQDN (although it is *written* first).

(I have some memory that I said something incorrect about this in the
past.)

Dale