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

John C Klensin <> Tue, 01 July 2008 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EF43A6BED; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4616E3A6BDF for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.236
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.363, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FEafnIZ1qXMs for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F823A6BFB for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KDnmi-000Ab9-Oa; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:53:13 -0400
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:53:11 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Thomas Narten <>,
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
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 16:51 -0400 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...


Pretend I'm a fine, upstanding, citizen who is in the domain
names business (I guess that would make me a "domaineer" :-))
and whose business model is based on traffic concentration and

I think I would really like to own "local", although not as much
as I'd like to own "" or any other name to which the
IETF or various protocol designs provide free advertising and
traffic direction.  Every leaked name that might reference a web
page would drive traffic to my site, as well as every action
that led those who didn't know what was going on to open
http://www.local./ to figure out what was going on.

In a more sane world, no one rational would want to build a
business or other activity around a TLD named "local".   But
this is demonstrably not a sane world.


Ietf mailing list