Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

[Lou Katz <lou () metron com>]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> > > Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best
> > > practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logic
> > > that .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name
> > > servers.
> > >
> > > Who wants to be the first to try to register *.local?
> > >
> > > > They should have been following RFC 2606.
> > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Marshall
> >
> >
> > Thinking about it a little more, what about the common use of
> > 'localhost.localdomain' for 127.0.0.1 in most versions of *nix? I can
> > just imagine the chaos that registering a *.localdomain TLD will  
> > cause.
>
> .localhost is already reserved through RFC 2606, so this should not be  
> a problem. To quote :
> The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in host  
> DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back IP  
> address and is reserved for such use. Any other use would conflict  
> with widely deployed code which assumes this use.
>
> > Methinks it is time to update RFC2606 to reflect common practices  
> > before
> > the new ICANN policies take effect.
>
> If you can think of a list, it probably would...

Having had the need to construct a few TLDs for internal use, I hope that some
new RFC will address this and reserve some (e.g. .internal, .internal# (where # is
any fully numeric string), .local)? I really don't care what they are called,
but I do need more than one.


> Marshall
>
> > Jon

<snip>

-- 

-=[L]=-
Helping to interpret the lives of the animals.