John C Klensin wrote: > For years, we managed to dodge that problem with conventional > subdomains (e.g., nic.example.), but we have not, to my knowledge, > ever promoted those uses via, e.g., a BCP that strongly recommends > them (unlike the email case, where RFC2142 does just that). I'd be happy if we can salvage abuse@ from the remains of RFC 2142, anything else is IMO hopeless: The netnews folks flat out refused to get as much as an informative reference to RFC 2142 for the old news@ / usenet@ / netnews@ mess. Compare <http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2142> (Caveat: errata links on the IETF Tools server are unreliable at the moment, reported bug) IOW we can say that spam killed RFC 2142, and maybe indirectly an IETF WG. RFC 2142 was published before RFC 2277, today its lack of I18N considerations is rather peculiar. I don't see what RFC 2142 has to do with reserved TLDs for technical reasons. > RCPT TO:<somemailbox@example.> > is a syntax error. RFC 2821 permitted it Nope, RFC 2821 *required* more than one label, but it didn't allow a trailing dot. 2821bis stripped the requirement. In other words somemailbox@example *is* an RFC 2821 syntax error until the second when 2821bis is approved, after that it's only a bad idea. "One dot required" (but no trailing dot) also made it in RFC 4871, among others, so far for TLDs trying to use DKIM directly at their root. SPF cannot talk about TLDs, but TLDs can have SPF records. TLDs starting a news server will coordinate their activities with the UUCP world map project (this involves time travel). > So, much as I'd like it if we could say "Single label names are > local in scope...does not work", I fear that it is unrealistic > in practice unless we can somehow turn the clock back 15 years > or so. [...seven hours later you wrote...] > let me note that 1536 is an informational document. We generally > don't claim that systems are expected to be compliant with those. [ITYM s/1536/1535/g for those search lists (?)] The complete concept of IDN TLDs including the running experiment with the eleven IDN test TLDs, builds on an informational RFC 3696, or on RFC 1123 errata, in a certain sense; often the status of an RFC is unrelated to its importance. > Review BCP17/RFC2219, be sure that we still believe it Not sure, it talks about WKS, it is apparently older than SRV, it has no proper IANA registry; "archie", "finger", "gopher", "ph", "rwhois", and "wais" are dead (but you can't say that in an RFC, because some folks including me would whine wrt "gopher") Apart from being odd names, what is wrong with a TLD ".abuse" or a TLD ".archie" ? TLD ".finger" could be funny for some Finnish- German organization. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf