Conversely, if root server traffic is an issue, getting networks to clean up their DNS traffic would be much more effective than limiting the number of TLDs.
sounds good. and why wouldn't "cleaning up DNS traffic" include refusing to refer any single-label query (for any record type other than NS, say) to an upstream server?
I have to congratulate you on one of the most subtle proposals to destroy the Internet that I have seen in a long time. More on that in a moment.
As I recall from prior root server surveys, the invalid traffic is unambiguously bogus, e.g., queries from RFC1918 space (4% of all traffic at one server), repeated queries for the same nonexistent name, dynamic rDNS updates from misconfigured Windows boxes, stuff like that where thre is no question it's wrong.
But, wow, what a can of worms would be opened by making a subtle semantic change to root DNS resolution. As I presume everyone knows, the DNS is managed via a Mexican standoff among the root server operators, ICANN, and national governments. The root servers don't have to do what ICANN says, so ICANN has (to date at least) been very careful never to ask them to do anything they might not want to do. Governments assert control over their ccTLDs, so ICANN has carefully run IANA as a purely clerical operation, with policy decisions limited to verifying that updates are indeed from the relevant governments, and the root operators have always accepted the ccTLD delegations forwarded by IANA. Nobody knows exactly what authority various governments have over various root servers, which are located in many countries all over the world.
So now ICANN and/or the root servers say, we changed our mind, we're not going to resolve names without dots. So who's going to explain to the Vatican that, sorry, pope@va doesn't work any more? Or will the US take issue when addresses @as, which is part of the US, don't work? Or France about @gp and @mq, which are as much part of France as Hawaii is part of the US?
What will Hong Kong or China do when the F and I roots in Hong Kong no longer resolve http://hk/? The Philipines when the I root in Manila doesn't resolve http://ph/?
I'm impressed, it never occurred to me that one could cause this much damage with such an arcane change to name resolution. That was really diabolical.
R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf