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

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> Fri, 27 June 2008 20:50 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 4A95E3A68E6; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:50:19 -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 115C93A6813 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.365
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.837, 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 IT1kqiDWqcjw for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from robin.verisign.com (robin.verisign.com [65.205.251.75]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE603A68E6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MOU1WNEXCN02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer2.verisign.com [65.205.251.35]) by robin.verisign.com (8.12.11/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m5RKnvUm016894; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:49:57 -0700
Received: from MOU1WNEXMB09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.15.197]) by MOU1WNEXCN02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:49:56 -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: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:48:35 -0700
Message-ID: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FF959@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: AcjYlUkHXOScLElDTsiw5itssikBaQAAeIgp
References: <4C0AE13D-4CA6-4989-A6B0-555A014DE464@multicasttech.com><74E3E26A-FCFB-45C1-989A-DD7EA5752974@virtualized.org><6.2.5.6.2.20080627121824.02c55340@resistor.net><A9ACF7FB-BC78-44D9-AA61-4FCACE821677@virtualized.org> <9486A1E5-864F-4B23-9EBA-697C1A7A7520@ca.afilias.info>
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: "Joe Abley" <jabley@ca.afilias.info>, "David Conrad" <drc@virtualized.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 20:49:56.0823 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B954670:01C8D897]
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, 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="===============0383672154=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Just register .local and do not assign it in the same way that 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x are registered.

________________________________

From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Joe Abley
Sent: Fri 6/27/2008 4:31 PM
To: David Conrad
Cc: SM; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?




On 27 Jun 2008, at 15:57, David Conrad wrote:

> On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:21 PM, SM wrote:
>>> I believe an RFC that provides an IETF-defined list of names (beyond
>>> the 4 in 2606) and/or rules defining names the "Internet technical
>>> community" feels would be inappropriate as top-level domains would 
>>> be
>>> quite helpful.
>> Do you mean as in RFC 3675?
>
> No.  I feel an RFC that creates a list (or defines a rule) that 
> identifies what names would be inappropriate for top-level domains 
> would be quite helpful.

Personally, I think that any such list (even one that was not static, 
but existed in the form of an IANA registry) would always be incomplete.

A better approach, I think, would be for proposed TLDs to pass 
technical review through some suitable body who could consider each 
case on its merits.

>  A couple of examples:
>
> - a label consisting of all numbers
> - the label "local"
>
> There may be others...

There will always be others, in my opinion, which is why I think the 
idea of a list of bad ideas is dangerous. Just because things are not 
on the list of bad ideas doesn't mean they are good ideas, but that's 
now how people will interpret it.


Joe

_______________________________________________
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