Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:22 PM, SM wrote:
It would cause problems if .local was given out. I don't recall seeing any RFC requesting IANA to reserve it.

Right.

- a label consisting of all numbers
We already have 888.com. Some users may ask for .888 given its significance in some cultures.

A TLD of all numbers would be a real pain to deal with. That is, from a software parsing perspective, what's the difference between the domain name "127.0.0.1" and the IP address "127.0.0.1"?

I cannot find a technical reason against PAYPAI.c0m.

Right. There is a policy reason ("confusingly similar"), but that's not a technical, e.g., protocol reason.

If such a technical review process is doomed, then why should the IETF get into defining technical guidelines outside the ".example" examples?

Because, as you've indicated with the .local example above, protocol actions can result in technical justification why a particular label used as a TLD could be problematic. An IANA registry defining these that ICANN can point to and tell applicants "no, because it is in the IETF-defined 'bad' list" would likely be helpful.

Regards,
-drc

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]