> At 15:40 02-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote: > >Now, for example, I happen to believe that "one-off typing error > >is guaranteed to yield a false positive", is a more than > >sufficient _technical_ basis to ban single-alphabetic-letter > >domains at either the top or second levels and to advise > >lower-level domains against their use. Those are technical > >grounds based on human interface design and information > >retrieval principles, not "the network will break if that is > >done". But few of the recommendations or reservations we might > > Some people may question a technical recommendation that is not based > on "the network will break". > > >make fall into that network-breaking latter category. Even some > >of those that fall closest to the line involve cases that we > >could "fix" by modifying our applications protocols to lexically > >distinguish between domain names and address literals > >(http://[10.0.0.6]/ anyone?). > > Or wait for http://[2001:1890:1112:1::20]/ to catch up. > > >But, should those of us who believe that single-letter domains > >are bad news refrain from advocating for that rule because those > >who oppose it could use it to discredit other IETF > >recommendations that might be more important? I don't know > > That's a question to consider before getting into any rule-making. > > >The rather odd phrasing there has been the source of a lot of > >discussion in the past in both selected IETF and ICANN circles. > >Some of us read it as "TLDs will be alphabetic only -- no > >digits", not just "cannot be all digits". The former was > >certainly the IANA intent when we were discussing RFC 1591. > >But does it apply today? Can ICANN override it? I can assure > >you that there are groups within ICANN who believe that they can. > > RFC 1591 has been swept away by the changes that have taken placed > since then. By making a few changes to RFC 5241, we could have a > document relevant to this topic. :-) > > At 16:23 02-07-2008, Mark Andrews wrote: > > No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld"; or "user@tld" > > to work reliably. I suspect there are still mail configuations > > around that will re-write "user@tld" to "user@xxxxxxxx". > > http://museum/ The key word word is "reliably". http://museum/ can never be guarenteed to work. I can have museum.example.net with a search list containing example.net. Which one would you expect to match? Note changing the search order to try single labels "as is" first is not safe from a security perpective (see RFC 1535 for why not) as the introduction of a new TLD will break things. Getting rid of search lists is also a show stopper. > > Should we be writting a RFC which states that MX and address > > records SHOULD NOT be added to the apex of a TLD zone? > > The above TLD has an address record. It still does not make it a good thing. > > Should we be writting a RFC which states that single label > > hostnames/mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up "as is" in > > the DNS? > > There was a ccTLD operator who expressed the wish for such mail domains. And I can wish for a million dollars to be added to my savings account. It doesn't mean I'll get it or that the ccTLD operator should get it. Mark > Regards, > -sm > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf