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

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

 



At 16:18 27-06-2008, David Conrad wrote:
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"?

The domain name may be confused with an IP address. That can be avoided by not allocating numbers from zero to 255 as TLDs. There was a recent thread on the IDNA mailing list about other representations of IPv4.

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.

The IETF can only publish such a list for protocols within IETF's scope, i.e. Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs, including Proposed, Draft and full Internet Standards and Best Current Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for IANA assignment. That covers assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and (c) experimental assignments.

That's different from an IETF-based "bad" list. .local can be covered once a RFC meeting the criteria is published. It doesn't fall under RFC 2606. That RFC lists top level domain names reserved for use in private testing, as examples in documentation, and the like.

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________

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]