-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 It could just be me but something about http://example doesn't feel right, I'd rather have http://example.com over http://example Regards, Tom McLoughlin On 13/07/2013 21:11, Ofer Inbar wrote: > Reading some of this discussion leaves me puzzled because I can't tell > which things that some people are saying are intended to be about > "dotless" use of domains, or are intended to be about the expansion of > top level domains in general. > > The IAB's statement does not seem to be about whether or not new TLDs > should be issued, or what good or bad effects that will have; the IAB > statement rather seems to assume as a given that new TLDs will come. > Yet a significant portion of the debate on this thread seems to be > about that. > > In theory, any of the "classic" TLDs could've been used in a "dotless" > fashion, but they haven't been. What the IAB statement is about is to > urge that none of the new TLDs be used "dotlessly" either. That's a > separate matter from whether they should come into being in the first place. > > What this brings to mind is that we used to have implicit DNS domain > search in the early days of DNS. When edu.com accidentally hijacked > a huge chunk of the Internet, most of the net very quickly got rid of > implicit search, and we got the explicit DNS search feature that many > people are discussing now. > > If some new TLD gets used in a dotless fashion in a way that truly > does cause major trouble, I expect we'll see sites all over the net > quickly deploying DNS resolvers that discard A, AAAA, or MX records > at the top level, to protect their users. > -- Cos -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlHht8UACgkQAfPjg38gQ2AhugEAjQ3klca8lGVhrMPXHrfPG070 6lh5a920j5hXy7dWpzUBAIr7Yi2oDsKoicUYj0XZBADNuflcoXJMPGULGOZD0KM4 =isSY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----