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

SM <> Thu, 03 July 2008 00:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0B93A67F3; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21F73A67E4 for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.066
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.532, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bHKi5xapOvLc for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673533A6821 for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m630QJp8022286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1215044788; x=1215131188; bh=Hls12u6gxswwoS9jXDmQrc9z92dFs9sxXwNt br9nbCg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=f3eO/mIcmQvIWm4oOSM91Onssb/F7FoWJX UwC/9ALdIz0bTX3USsyyv7ENxxoeGmwHnIYsDAR+Qrur9GroratbQuy7Xyi+QGM7xRc ThNYMRb25oAVkA8pTxNvQhhLBlxrWsl1bl3f69X9GN+/UnGcWv2fz+J+juZ0gmt7bMd Kyk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail;; c=simple; q=dns; b=n4kNEPo0nXbVLUkX91fZz9qKC1E7fOHMH2fTUjXq79a0GtU+f/IE1iwxx3MuRpdng +JsIZcV6uWqA/+9M2Z9sKpsrGjsjSkaz5p/KuNRZZQYFPBpdEJqMhtbdz63vYF/4SYS e+JwNLs2Cm1MO7yPWPBzPuWjKDO37hWgDLKnf3Q=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:21:56 -0700
To: The IETF <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
In-Reply-To: <4EE35E6C77E4E012B5755019@p3.JCK.COM>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A@p3.JCK.COM> <> <p0624081cc4915ab876b2@[]> <> <p0624081ec4916d89dfac@[]> <4EE35E6C77E4E012B5755019@p3.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

At 15:40 02-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
>Now, for example, I happen to believe that "one-off typing error
>is guaranteed to yield a false positive", is a more than
>sufficient _technical_ basis to ban single-alphabetic-letter
>domains at either the top or second levels and to advise
>lower-level domains against their use.  Those are technical
>grounds based on human interface design and information
>retrieval principles, not "the network will break if that is
>done".  But few of the recommendations or reservations we might

Some people may question a technical recommendation that is not based 
on "the network will break".

>make fall into that network-breaking latter category.  Even some
>of those that fall closest to the line involve cases that we
>could "fix" by modifying our applications protocols to lexically
>distinguish between domain names and address literals
>(http://[]/ anyone?).

Or wait for http://[2001:1890:1112:1::20]/ to catch up.

>But, should those of us who believe that single-letter domains
>are bad news refrain from advocating for that rule because those
>who oppose it could use it to discredit other IETF
>recommendations that might be more important?    I don't know

That's a question to consider before getting into any rule-making.

>The rather odd phrasing there has been the source of a lot of
>discussion in the past in both selected IETF and ICANN circles.
>Some of us read it as "TLDs will be alphabetic only -- no
>digits", not just "cannot be all digits".  The former was
>certainly the IANA intent when we were discussing RFC 1591.
>But does it apply today?  Can ICANN override it?  I can assure
>you that there are groups within ICANN who believe that they can.

RFC 1591 has been swept away by the changes that have taken placed 
since then.  By making a few changes to RFC 5241, we could have a 
document relevant to this topic. :-)

At 16:23 02-07-2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
>         No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld" or "user@tld"
>         to work reliably.  I suspect there are still mail configuations
>         around that will re-write "user@tld" to "user@tld.ARPA"ARPA".


>         Should we be writting a RFC which states that MX and address
>         records SHOULD NOT be added to the apex of a TLD zone?

The above TLD has an address record.

>         Should we be writting a RFC which states that single label
>         hostnames/mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up "as is" in
>         the DNS?

There was a ccTLD operator who expressed the wish for such mail domains.


Ietf mailing list