Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606

Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> Mon, 07 July 2008 04:37 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 B467B3A699F; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 21:37:35 -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 F41FA3A69CA for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 21:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.775, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6]
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 d8x27B2UGWry for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 21:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B563A679C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 21:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m674bR7e076922; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:37:28 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org)
Message-Id: <200807070437.m674bR7e076922@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Subject: Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:21:27 -0400." <alpine.BSF.1.10.0807062257590.17140@simone.iecc.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:37:27 +1000
Cc: 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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> > 	Again you are asserting that no one has ever been effected.
> 
> No, I'm saying that you can only cry wolf so many times.
> 
> The disaster you are predicting has in fact been in progress for over
> a decade, and the mountains of casualties are nowhere to be found.
 
	Just because there are no newspaper articles being published
	doesn't mean that there are not problems.  There will have
	been lots of little incidents over the years.  Each one
	will have been cleaned up quietly.

	e.g.
	    A .forward pointing to "user@host" where host has gone
	away but it also matches a tld with a A record.  In most
	cases the administator will just remove the .forward and
	not bother complaining that the mail was being mis-directed
	for a while.

> Someone claiming to be you said:
> 
> >        I suspect that other sites that used the names just put up
> >        with the pain of renamimg hosts along with the resultant
> >        risk of email being misdirected.
> 
> There's at least one well known mail host whose name has matched a TLD 
> with an MX for ten years now.  Did they rename?  Are they losing floods of 
> mail to the Caribbean?  Uh, well, if they are, they're not telling anyone. 
> How do we explain this conspiracy of silence?

	Well if they wanted to email user@ai then yes.  It's a case
	of something has got to give.
 
> Finally, as I presume you're aware, some browsers including Firefox retry 
> with an appended .com if the address you type doesn't resolve, so if you 
> type something like www.pets into your browser, it will find www.pets.com. 
> This means that if ICANN creates new TLDs that match any of the 70 million 
> existing .com domains, users of popular current software will suddenly 
> find that they're not seeing the sites they used to see.  (We're not 
> talking about records at the apex of a TLD here, it's www.blah.com vs. 
> www.blah.)  Should all of the existing .com domain names be reserved as 
> TLDs?  If not, why not?  It's the same problem, only it affects a lot more 
> people.

	Firefox's defaults are just plain wrong.  This has been
	pointed out multiple times by multiple people.  It's also
	easily addressable by the end user.

	Set browser.fixup.alternate.enabled to false in about:config.

	Two wrongs don't make a right.  They just make two things
	that need to be fixed.

	Mark

> R's,
> John
> 
> PS to everyone else: I'll stop beating this dead horse now.
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf