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

Philip Guenther <guenther+ietfd@sendmail.com> Tue, 01 July 2008 21:47 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 E69563A6BAA; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:47:04 -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 3E0A03A6BF4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6]
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 ia39htWVbB2M for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ladle.sendmail.com (ladle.sendmail.com [209.246.26.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5383A6BAA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spork.sendmail.com (tls.sendmail.com [209.246.26.41]) by ladle.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Sentrion-3.0.0) with ESMTP id m61LpV5X017199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:51:33 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=ladle.dkim; t=1214949093; bh=4hD5Pc4F8FjC2wQKbpqYo3anaA62dBbFxVVI V//OzLo=; h=Received:X-DKIM:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:X-X-Sender:To: cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:User-Agent: MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-MM-Ex-RefId; b=r4NMeaKsOuxMr0i3oBFRt0O 6TfARe1HZuuxcx/gyNKtMlQueRlIzp9kFpErNWCGOu4ItWNEEzOR2sio2avf8XXprK+ TSHPBU2SGnFZVvu9TqLadO6hScDgVS8EjSdMvbP2R7WuX7/M0sQEhuZso9nLopeY7jd IGViwBIxzqvFrA=
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-64-58-1-252.mho.net [64.58.1.252] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id m61Ll67F019312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:47:08 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.2.3 spork.sendmail.com m61Ll67F019312
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=spork.dkim; t=1214948829; bh=4hD5Pc4F8FjC2wQKbpqYo3anaA62dBbFxVVI V//OzLo=; h=Date:From:X-X-Sender:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:References:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type: X-MM-Ex-RefId; b=idz+WsOtZFTD/j7m6PLluFZH2TXGebmQ8VsSIBwGMnIEsuoQV cgeiu3LIvlKm7w/bqjR9b04x8wqo7VuVPAyCsavk8pdx8LjBzBzzPHuqv5FrCWjuYWf DPiqhcAS8zmYTGPHm/ZGi5aejfZuSdNvaG8ka87StAwBxV0/7U5Zfn8=
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:47:06 -0600
From: Philip Guenther <guenther+ietfd@sendmail.com>
X-X-Sender: guenther@vanye.mho.net
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
In-Reply-To: <200807012051.m61KpLeq021685@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSO.1.10.0807011538400.4906@vanye.mho.net>
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> <200807012051.m61KpLeq021685@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSO 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MM-Ex-RefId: 149371::080701144709-542A7B90-14FC4A4C/0-0/0-1
Cc: 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Thomas Narten wrote:
...
> Also, for TLDs like .local, one could also to some extent just say
> "buyer beware". Anyone wanting a TLD that is known to not be useable
> in practice (for some deployed software) would get what they
> deserve. :-) The folk wanting TLDs presumably want TLDs that can
> actually be used...

Oh, a TLD of .local has a potential use...of convincing filtering software 
on node A that evil.local is a normal, valid hostname, while node B behind 
it treats evil.local as being in the magic-for-it .local TLD.  Differing 
interpretations result in fragility.


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