nanog mailing list archives
Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () isc org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 01:24:30 +0000
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:30:58 -0500 From: Jeremy <jbaino () gmail com> "DK" may not be hierarchical, but "DK." is. If you try to resolve "DK" on it's own, many (most? all?) DNS clients will attach the search string/domain name of the local system in order to make it a FQDN. The same happens when you try and resolve a non-existent domain. Such as alskdiufwfeiuwdr3948dx.com, in wireshark I see the initial request followed by alskdiufwfeiuwdr3948dx.com.gateway.2wire.net. However if I qualify it with the trailing dot, it stops after the first lookup. "DK." is a valid FQDN and should be considered hierarchical due to the dot being the root and anything before that is a branch off of the root. see RFC1034
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference between http://sony/ and http://sony./ and if a technology person tried to explain to a marketing person that single-token TLD names *can* be used as long as there's a trailing dot, the result would hopefully be "that glazed look" of nonunderstanding but would far more likely be an interpretation of "oh, so it's OK after all, we'll use it that way, thanks!" furthermore, the internet has more in it than just the web, and i know that "foo@sony." will not have its RHS ("sony.") treated as a hierarchical name. i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names, universally.
Current thread:
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs, (continued)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Randy Bush (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Chris Adams (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs David Conrad (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Owen DeLong (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Richard Barnes (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Adam Atkinson (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jeremy (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jeff Kell (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs David Conrad (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Michael Thomas (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Doug Barton (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Doug Barton (Jun 19)
- future revenue at risk vs near term cost ratio Mike Leber (Jun 19)