nanog mailing list archives
Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:47:14 -0400 (EDT)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference between http://sony/ and http://sony./Neither do any of the browsers I use, which resolve http://bi/ as well as http://dk./ just fine. Whatever problem unqualified TLD names might present to web browsers has been around for a long time and the world hasn't come to an end.
C'mon, John; you've just been skimming the thread? The problem caused by making monocomponent name resolution non-deterministic has been covered in pretty decent detail, just today. We didn't say http://apple/ wouldn't work... we said it wouldn't work (as previously expected) *if someone already had an internal machine called "apple"*... at which point http://apple/ might resolve to a new and different thing which matched http://apple./ Saying "that's very unlikely to happen" only displays a fairly shallow knowledge of the *number* of different categories and shapes of large IP networks that exist in the world. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Current thread:
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs, (continued)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs David Conrad (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Robert Bonomi (Jun 20)
- RE: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs George Bonser (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs John Levine (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs John R. Levine (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Owen DeLong (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Matthew Palmer (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs David Conrad (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Joly MacFie (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs John Levine (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs John R. Levine (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Tony Finch (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Adam Atkinson (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Adam Atkinson (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Adam Atkinson (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 19)