Re: reserved names draft, was Defining the existence of non-existent domains

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 05:39 05-01-2010, Jorge Amodio wrote:
On the table at 2.1.4 you need to add LATNIC that seems to be also
reserved by ICANN, not sure why they missed it on the DAG but it's on
every single Registry Agreement.

PSO might also have to be added then. According to information published by IANA, these two names are still reserved.

"Transparency, once lost, is hard to regain" [1]. We could reflect on that as we discuss about reserved names. Some people might argue that:

  "The Domain Name System (DNS) provides an essential service on the
   Internet, mapping structured names to a variety of different types of" [2]
   money making schemes.

I can only hope that the domain name policy makers have read RFC 4367. Defining a registry for reserved names can be a perilous exercise. There are different viewpoints about whether the authority to do so is the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. There's the protocol angle where RFC 2860 gets invoked as in BCP 52. There's RFC 2606 which predates RFC 2860. There was a draft in 2005 (draft-eastlake-2606bis) which raised questions similar to the current draft about reserved names. There was also another draft (draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds) written in 2008 which was an attempt to update RFC 2606 based on recent ICANN changes.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4924.txt
2. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4367.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]