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

David Conrad <> Mon, 30 June 2008 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC5D3A699C; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812C23A682E for <>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.713
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.713 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F3Uni3Us2RVP for <>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDEF3A67FE for <>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50596266AF3; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <>
From: David Conrad <>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:29:38 -0700
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"

On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Speaking technically, how would you distinguish the top-level domain
>> "" from the IP address
> A word while passing here: is there a document (RFC, Posix standard,
> whatever) which says which is the right result in such a case?

Not that I'm aware of (and that's sort of the point), however there is  
a lot of code out there that are variations on checking to see if a  
string is comprised of all digits and '.' and if so, declares the  
string to be an IP address.  If an all-numeric TLD were to be created,  
I would expect lots of unexpected behavior.

Sort of like the concerns about unexpected behavior that resulted in  
rejecting UTF-8 labels and coming up with punycode.

> So, I would say there is a normalization failure here: since
> can be a domain name and an IP address, we really should have
> precedence rules for such case (instead of asking ICANN to solve them
> by forbidding all-numeric TLD).

I'm not asking that ICANN solve this problem, rather that the IETF  
solve it so that ICANN can point to the IETF solution.  Having been in  
some of the discussion internally within ICANN on this topic, I figure  
something like this would be really nice...


Ietf mailing list