[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Call for Adoption: draft-davies-internal-tld

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 06 May 2025 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b6CAFA0C7@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A475A253A2D7 for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2025 00:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rj0-HvNEVTlT for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2025 00:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2a10:3781:2413:1:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E040D253A2D2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2025 00:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1uCD7U-0000LSC; Tue, 6 May 2025 09:53:40 +0200
Message-Id: <m1uCD7U-0000LSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b6CAFA0C7@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <1C9E8ABA-4399-491B-A9F4-D9ACCB1BA72C@virtualized.org> <9EE8E4CC-04A3-46C7-BDDF-EF538A822AA8@virtualized.org> <m1uBHRs-0000LsC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <2796076.J18nJlZdWt@workstation.vm.ideapad.lan>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 05 May 2025 23:15:40 +0200 ." <2796076.J18nJlZdWt@workstation.vm.ideapad.lan>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 09:53:40 +0200
Message-ID-Hash: SUFDVOLW34RN7Y2XKJXEBPAMVIJ2ENQI
X-Message-ID-Hash: SUFDVOLW34RN7Y2XKJXEBPAMVIJ2ENQI
X-MailFrom: pch-b6CAFA0C7@u-1.phicoh.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Call for Adoption: draft-davies-internal-tld
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mhbHaEZkj3uRsG24ehF6enygQDg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

>> Can you explain how this is relevant to the .internal discussion
>> which is specifically reserved to be used in DNS?
>
>Within the context of .internal, I would like to remark browsers' role in this
> 
>for internal domain names (currently e.g. .lan in my networks). So the web 
>browser has an omnibar, right. And depending on what you put into it, the 
>browser needs to decide whether it should execute a DNS lookup and HTTP 
>request, or treat it as a search query. For domains on .lan, it always seems 
>to need a trailing /, most of the time not even . apex cuts it here. Which is 
>annoying.

This is getting off topic because how an 'omnibar' works is not part of this
working group. But it does raise the question, do browsers react differently
depending on whether a name is present in the root or not?

If I type foo.internal in a web browser does it react differently from, say,
foo.amsterdam.

I tried for my browser (Firefox) and got the same result. But maybe other 
browsers different.