Re: [dnsext] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01.txt> (Special-Use Domain Names) to Proposed Standard

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-02-04, at 07:41, Florian Weimer wrote:

> LOCAL.  If understand things correctly, it's widely used to trigger
> Multicast DNS resolution in combined DNS/Multicast DNS environments.

In draft-jabley-reserved-domain-names-00, my initial registry was specified as:

   +-------------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
   | Domain Name | Description                             | Reference |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
   | TEST        | Recommended for use in testing of       | [RFC2606] |
   |             | current or new DNS related code         |           |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | EXAMPLE     | Recommended for use in documentation or | [RFC2606] |
   |             | as examples                             |           |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | INVALID     | Recommended for use in documentation or | [RFC2606] |
   |             | as examples                             |           |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | LOCALHOST   | Traditionally statically defined in     | [RFC2606] |
   |             | host DNS implementations as having an A |           |
   |             | record pointing to the loop back IP     |           |
   |             | address, and reserved for such use      |           |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | EXAMPLE.COM | Available for use as examples           | [RFC2606] |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | EXAMPLE.NET | Available for use as examples           | [RFC2606] |
   |             |                                         |           |
   | EXAMPLE.ORG | Available for use as examples           | [RFC2606] |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+

I didn't include LOCAL because there wasn't a suitable published document for it, and the registry I defined had registration procedures specified as "document published with iab approval". However, if this registry existed, I would expect that Stuart's bonjour draft would be extended with an IANA Considerations section that specified relevant names be added to the registry.

I never submitted draft-jabley-reserved-domain-names-00 when I wrote it, but since I've referred to it a couple of times I will now do so in case that's of any use to anybody. I continue to think that Stuart's discussion of the issues is valuable, but I think the registry creation would benefit from more concise direction.


Joe