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

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> Tue, 01 July 2008 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21FB3A6A7A; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8993A6B1F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.283
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.919, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id APfrmcw93H7I for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from robin.verisign.com (robin.verisign.com [65.205.251.75]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71C03A6A7A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MOU1WNEXCN03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer6.verisign.com [65.205.251.33]) by robin.verisign.com (8.12.11/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m61GwiSn016059; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:58:44 -0700
Received: from MOU1WNEXMB09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.15.197]) by MOU1WNEXCN03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:58:44 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:58:43 -0700
Message-ID: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FF95F@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Thread-Index: AcjbmeKhMxjHT5J2SBSZLzvKCOlHtgAAL+Kb
References: <4C0AE13D-4CA6-4989-A6B0-555A014DE464@multicasttech.com> <74E3E26A-FCFB-45C1-989A-DD7EA5752974@virtualized.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20080627121824.02c55340@resistor.net> <BBB8E0B4-7E45-4BE9-B9DF-DEBE294585D6@multicasttech.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20080627140118.02a43fd8@resistor.net> <6F1CFDA0-A6E2-4257-8C72-0FCD1E117290@virtualized.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20080628201322.02e43268@resistor.net> <FBBF3BB9-D231-494A-AFBE-7F816DD1180C@virtualized.org> <20080630064127.GA5829@sources.org> <3B2E8E96-ACAA-4A13-BBE2-33DC80DDADC6@virtualized.org> <20080630190153.GB31520@sources.org> <alpine.LSU.1.10.0807011737360.30078@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <486A5F01.90306@dcrocker.net>
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, "Tony Finch" <dot@dotat.at>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2008 16:58:44.0564 (UTC) FILETIME=[B8B98940:01C8DB9B]
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1020586549=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Another like restriction that might be investigated is whether http://microsoft/ or other similar corporate TLDs would work as intended with deployed legacy browsers.
 
I suspect (but have not tried) that if you simply type 'Microsoft' into the address bar of some browsers you might have the keyword immediately interpreted as a search term, not an address to visit. 
 
 
I also suspect that if we actually read the technical specs being proposed we might find that some of these issues have already been anticipated in them and addressed.
 
 
________________________________

From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Dave Crocker
Sent: Tue 7/1/2008 12:44 PM
To: Tony Finch
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?





Tony Finch wrote:
>>> Speaking technically, how would you distinguish the top-level domain
>>> "127.0.0.1" from the IP address 127.0.0.1?
>> A word while passing here: is there a document (RFC, Posix standard,
>> whatever) which says which is the right result in such a case?
>
> RFC 1123 section 2.1, especially the last sentence.

Interesting.

I hadn't noticed the implication of that, before, but it seems to be a pretty
clear technical specification that a top-level domain is not allowed to be a
decimal number.  Ever.

That's a concrete constraint on what ICANN is permitted to authorize.

d/
--

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf