On 2008-06-29 16:35, SM wrote:
> 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,
Nonsense. The IETF can reserve any TLDs for technical reasons that
need to be reserved for technical reasons (subject to IETF consensus,
of course).
Brian
> 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