> How about adding it to 2606 ? 2606bis could add a note that > ".local" might be used for local purposes specified elsewhere There is now a 2606bis draft, but it doesn't mention .local : <http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-2606bis-00> This memo quotes an agreement between ICANN and VeriSign about gTLD .net published in <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/net/net-registry-agreement-01jul05.pdf> While that's all fine for gTLD .net and all TLDs with similar agreements it's somewhat strange for other TLDs: What's wrong with any "labels at all levels" matching one of aso, gnso, icann, internic, ccsno, afrinic, apnic, arin, example, gtld-servers, iab, iana, iana-servers, iesg, ietf, irtf, istf, lacnic, latnic, rfc-editor, ripe, root-servers ? Where's the technical problem with one of these strings in an SLD or elsewhere ? What's the technical purpose of reserving these strings everywhere ? When did all ccTLDs agree to this arrangement ? This draft references the informational RfC 1591 as normative. So far I thought that 1591 in essence says that the internal business of a TLD is, well, its internal business. E.g. it's not obliged to offer a whois server no matter what ICANN's agreements with other TLDs like .net might say. For chapter 3.3 the purpose is clear, but xn-- is not more reserved, it's already used as specified elsewhere. 3.4 is also clear: FQDN whois.sc is a Bad Thing, because it's unrelated to a whois server of ccTLD .sc OTOH one reserved SLD nic could be good enough for all TLDs, an inflation of reserved SLD labels doesn't help (?) 3.2 prohibits single characters as SLD. What's the technical purpose of this prohibition ? It also prohibits two characters as SLD unless the government of the corresponding ccTLD, or if that doesn't exist the ISO 3166 MA allow it. What on earth has ISO 3166 to do with SLDs ? They are ignorant about ccTLDs as demonstrated by CS. Numerous SLDs using two characters, country codes, letters, or else, exist. If ICANN doesn't allow this in its agreements it's fine, but where is the technical reason to prohibit something like http://a9.com or http://ix.de ? (Yes, the latter is a legacy case under DENIC rules, but so far this is no BCP affecting all TLDs.) Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf