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

Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info> Fri, 27 June 2008 20:34 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 307223A6821; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:34:06 -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 90CCF3A682A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 oUEwpFqNlNOa for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [199.212.90.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39CC83A6B80 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=monster; d=ca.afilias.info; h=Received:Cc:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer; b=LrNXHM/2PksOcdxi3Rj08Sj1Htax3vEwuwEusv5T3Icp3oxfPj1NQVba9S4AAFyw85YNqtPuCL48xQHn4IDFKTn53OFWxFal4eN9kel5aZoKUZ3pjpfQZ9ui6+0CunGs;
Received: from [199.212.90.16] (helo=yxu1a16.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <jabley@ca.afilias.info>) id 1KCKfJ-0004EK-OO; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:35:30 +0000
Message-Id: <9486A1E5-864F-4B23-9EBA-697C1A7A7520@ca.afilias.info>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <A9ACF7FB-BC78-44D9-AA61-4FCACE821677@virtualized.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:31:47 -0400
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, 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"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On 27 Jun 2008, at 15:57, David Conrad wrote:

> On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:21 PM, SM wrote:
>>> I believe an RFC that provides an IETF-defined list of names (beyond
>>> the 4 in 2606) and/or rules defining names the "Internet technical
>>> community" feels would be inappropriate as top-level domains would  
>>> be
>>> quite helpful.
>> Do you mean as in RFC 3675?
>
> No.  I feel an RFC that creates a list (or defines a rule) that  
> identifies what names would be inappropriate for top-level domains  
> would be quite helpful.

Personally, I think that any such list (even one that was not static,  
but existed in the form of an IANA registry) would always be incomplete.

A better approach, I think, would be for proposed TLDs to pass  
technical review through some suitable body who could consider each  
case on its merits.

>  A couple of examples:
>
> - a label consisting of all numbers
> - the label "local"
>
> There may be others...

There will always be others, in my opinion, which is why I think the  
idea of a list of bad ideas is dangerous. Just because things are not  
on the list of bad ideas doesn't mean they are good ideas, but that's  
now how people will interpret it.


Joe

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