Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04

Doug Barton <> Mon, 22 November 2010 03:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0E33A6A00 for <>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:52:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RY5L+uP92IiE for <>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:52:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982573A6936 for <>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:52:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 16784 invoked by uid 399); 22 Nov 2010 03:53:39 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ( by localhost with ESMTPAM; 22 Nov 2010 03:53:39 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:53:38 -0800
From: Doug Barton <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101028 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070505060007090503080304"
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <>, Joe Abley <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 03:52:47 -0000

Hash: SHA256

On 11/17/2010 01:19, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
| On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:42:24PM -0500,
|   Joe Abley<>  wrote
|   a message of 15 lines which said:
|> is the latest iteration of an effort started quite some time ago to
|> clarify the somewhat vague inference in RFC 1123 and create a more
|> precise specification for the syntax of TLD labels in the DNS.
| Nice attempt but, as I have already said
| <>,
| there is zero technical reason to limit the TLD to alphabetic
| characters and therefore, the rule:
| traditional-tld-label = 1*63(ALPHA)
| is both a new rule (it was not in RFC 1034 or 1035) and a bad one.
| I object to the creation of new rules disguised as clarifications.

Fully agree with Stephane on this. That bit needs to be changed to the
ABNF equivalent of the same LDH rules we use for hostnames. I've also
attached a diff with some related edits. More importantly it's worth
correcting the IANA section to make it clear that the IANA does not
create policy.

To amplify my agreement with Stephane, we have already added LDH labels
to the top level, and the sky did not fall. Therefore the only valid
clarification from a _technical_ perspective is that the aside in 1123
was never a protocol restriction. Anything else is layer 9, and
specifically not our problem.

I also agree with Stephane and Andrew that there are poorly written
programs in the world that will have problems with TLD names that start
with a non-alphabetic. We already lived through the drama that new TLDs
caused 10 years ago (been there, done that), and I agree with Stephane
that whatever drama ensues from a TLD that starts with a digit is
unlikely to cause the network to melt down tomorrow.


- -- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)

Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD)