Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

Stephane Bortzmeyer <> Sun, 29 June 2008 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CBB3A6942; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3213A69C1 for <>; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IeA5ei-9P3N8 for <>; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9743A6942 for <>; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10) id 7CF76949EC; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:53:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52A631906DF; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:51:17 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:51:17 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
To: Marshall Eubanks <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux lenny/sid
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 02:43:17PM -0400,
 Marshall Eubanks <> wrote 
 a message of 20 lines which said:

> It seems like additional TLD domains, beyond just the 4 in RFC 2606,
> should be either reserved or blocked.

I have the feeling that it is a recurring question, although I cannot
find immediately a pointer to the relevant discussions. Anyway, I'm
not sure it is a good idea and, should we publish a RFC, it could
possibly explain why people should not use local TLDs like ".local".

> Suggestions include .local (apparently used heavily by Microsoft),
> .internal

As far as I know (but I cannot find a formal statement from the IAB or
a RFC), "local" TLDs like ".local" are regarded as a bad idea, mostly
because they are a pain to manage, should two organizations
merge. Also, they are vulnerable to leaks (in the Received: headers of
email, for instance). Globally unique domains are therefore better.

At a time (when Network Solutions was taking money from ".com"
registrants and when most ccTLDs were terribly closed), these TLD were
the only reasonable solution for some people.

Now, it is much more realistic to obtain a domain name in the TLD of
your choice for a very small price. Rather than reserving ".local",
shouldn't we advise people to use a regular domain name?

> (and, not least, whether there is a better mail list for this
> discussion).

dnsop ?
Ietf mailing list