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

John C Klensin <> Wed, 02 July 2008 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0AB3A6A50; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42A13A6A50 for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.211, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XGOt29PUPEZt for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23FA3A69C1 for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KEAep-00002I-9F; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:18:35 -0400
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:18:34 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <>,, Tony Finch <>
Subject: RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <1351DF4C8872F74C5F8D4744@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
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

--On Tuesday, 01 July, 2008 09:58 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<> wrote:

> 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 suspect that, if Microsoft spent a hundred thousand dollars or
more to secure "microsoft." as a TLD, at least one of those
browsers would be swiftly corrected in a way that they would
find satisfactory.

The issue with billg@microsoft is a little more complex.  After
extended discussions, rfc2821bis still does not permit 
  RCPT TO:<bill@microsoft.>
(note trailing dot) and there are some other issues about trying
to use TLDs as the only label in an email address.

But none of that counts.  There have been more than enough
actors who have wanted TLDs that violate one rule or another,
assuming that applications authors will sort things out as
needed, maybe even with IETF help.  And there have been more
than enough who believe that, if some construction they want
works with the world's most popular browser, then it is
sufficient (non-web protocols be d**ned).


Ietf mailing list