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

<> Mon, 07 July 2008 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE983A6B1A; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683B23A6AB0 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M3tNejCeu+cd for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8233A680F for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from []) by (MOS 3.8.4-GA) with HTTPS/1.1 id AWH55905 (AUTH; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
To: John Levine <>
X-Mailer: Mirapoint Webmail Direct 3.8.4-GA
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
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

> I have to congratulate you on one of the most subtle 
> proposals to destroy the Internet that I have seen 
> in a long time.  More on that in a moment.

Maybe you should read and understand the proposal before commenting on it.  I realize that it's difficult to actually
be sure you understand a single sentence before writing
several paragraphs - but hey, it's not much to ask.
(hint: It doesn't affect ICANN or the root servers at all.)

> So who's going to explain to the Vatican that, sorry, 
> pope@va doesn't work any more?  Or will the US take 
> issue when addresses @as, which is part of the US, 
> don't work?  Or France about @gp and @mq, which are 
> as much part of France as Hawaii is part of the US?

I'd be very surprised if any of these work as-is, with any reliability.  They certainly won't work for email.  The assumption that fully qualified domain names contain at least one '.' is widespread in both protocol specifications and implementations.

> I'm impressed, it never occurred to me that one could 
> cause this much damage with such an arcane change to 
> name resolution. 

If you can cite verifiable evidence that even a single case that works reliably now, will cease to work, I'll concede that there is at least a hint of merit to your argument.   e.g. an actual email address or URL that uses a single-label domain name.

Ietf mailing list