IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Mon, 07 July 2008 16:24 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 BD4F93A6A3F; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:24:44 -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 8DEF93A6A3F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
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 HuvHGDNlwgMZ for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089A63A69F9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (adsl-68-122-70-168.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.70.168]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m67GOdH8019724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:24:44 -0700
Message-ID: <48724347.6020500@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:24:39 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lyman Chapin <lyman@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: Your message of <200807022323.m62NNwVJ034275@drugs.dv.isc.org> <BLU137-W18376D2DBA85C8F712C06F93980@phx.gbl> <8953A1CE-E953-409F-A692-BD12DF4ADE61@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <8953A1CE-E953-409F-A692-BD12DF4ADE61@acm.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/7654/Mon Jul 7 07:26:56 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


Lyman Chapin wrote:
>    If it were possible to put that aside, 
> would you have any other objection to single label hostnames? I know 
> that at least some of the interest in new gTLDs has been expressed by 
> companies that like the idea of using a globally-recognized trademark as 
> a TLD - for example, "customerservice@ibm" (not to imply that IBM is one 
> of the companies that has expressed this sort of interest).

What will be the impact of having, perhaps,

   1)  millions of entries in the root servers, and

   2)  constant traffic banging on those servers?

Historically, the view has been that bloating the root servers in that way would 
be very dangerous.

Counter-claims observe that .com seems to have survived with a similar storage 
and traffic pattern, so why should there be a problem moving the pattern up one 
level?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email