On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 02:43:17PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks <tme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote a message of 20 lines which said: > It seems like additional TLD domains, beyond just the 4 in RFC 2606, > should be either reserved or blocked. I have the feeling that it is a recurring question, although I cannot find immediately a pointer to the relevant discussions. Anyway, I'm not sure it is a good idea and, should we publish a RFC, it could possibly explain why people should not use local TLDs like ".local". > Suggestions include .local (apparently used heavily by Microsoft), > .internal As far as I know (but I cannot find a formal statement from the IAB or a RFC), "local" TLDs like ".local" are regarded as a bad idea, mostly because they are a pain to manage, should two organizations merge. Also, they are vulnerable to leaks (in the Received: headers of email, for instance). Globally unique domains are therefore better. At a time (when Network Solutions was taking money from ".com" registrants and when most ccTLDs were terribly closed), these TLD were the only reasonable solution for some people. Now, it is much more realistic to obtain a domain name in the TLD of your choice for a very small price. Rather than reserving ".local", shouldn't we advise people to use a regular domain name? > (and, not least, whether there is a better mail list for this > discussion). dnsop ? _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf