[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] on the more general problem of delegating to other namespaces in the DNS

[Libor Peltan <[e-mail]>]

There are also other examples when the "domain" invalid. was used as a 
placeholder for nonexisting delegation to nowhere.

However, it would probably need another document declaring that the 
domain invalid. would never be delegated as a gTLD to anyone ever 
*trollface*

Libor

On 17. 06. 25 20:14, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2025, at 20:05, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 17, 2025, at 10:54, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Using "." to mean "not available" has some history and it feels nice not to deviate;
>> I would generally agree, but in this case noname (".") has a particular meaning in the DNS that it doesn't in, for example MX records. Thus my concern.
> Well, an MX target is a hostname to which packets are sent; an NS target is a hostname to which packets are sent. So I'm not sure the situations are so different.
>
> In both cases a client that for some reason thinks the empty string is a valid hostname might try to resolve it. Such resolution will look for a root zone apex A or AAAA record. There isn't one; the cacheable NODATA responses from the root servers should confirm that to be the case.
>
> I agree that software is riddled with crazy nonsense and nothing is impossible, but what I would expect to see is either nothing much or increased volumes of ./IN/A and ./IN/AAAA at the root servers.
>
> The root servers are well-provisioned to be able to handle junk, which is good because junk is mainly what they receive. But yes, science seems appropriate.
>
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]