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

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 27 June 2008 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20C328C201; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860D628C1FD for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qpvWmbip8QJq for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BE928C1FF for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x19so228082pyg.24 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hwbU9ei2Oyi++Vd3nt0TxSlaC6pw6TnAJ5IXhxqyzqo=; b=H+Nhm+GQWgS5W06jhIV0qHJRCttlolnNoma1qWR5zG4SRxx5p6McsKv/wJNIzXh/Zp H66OeQyjlgQsPdNiwuCGkUehQ221Uyp7JB7twVsb0Iiwfae8zrLvSWjV1vETni+3WwoP Pea1fSM36D8XU6T2jYOxdWbi4GxbDYxG8Si+8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Z31QGGwkxxynrWm0/BI0z+JMAsZx5xeehNkZqGAxKNDj1k0XNfKkYOV8mvC4eTRRm5 MvhK+xc0hdiIFVMcoV9aSGcdF2BMXQIwoTKRP2wzKtUDbkyN97ctShZ9iSYVZHGe2Ezo fjLw23daC7709LQ/RiAtc1lsbFHU+1ThBdluY=
Received: by with SMTP id l9mr717131wfg.208.1214602789605; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id 22sm4306062wfi.14.2008. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:39:43 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Abley <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: SM <>,
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 2008-06-28 08:31, Joe Abley wrote:
> 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.

I think all the external evidence is that ICANN is deeply reluctant to
set up mechanisms that require the application of common sense (a.k.a.
judgment) as to whether or not a particular domain name may be registered.
I see no reason to expect this to be different now they have opened
the floodgates to greed at the TLD level too. So I think that any such
technical review process is doomed. The best we can do is proceed
under the second paragraph of section 4.3 of RFC 2850, i.e. designate
specific TLDs as reserved for technical reasons, and so instruct IANA.
Furthermore, I believe this is not only the *best* we can; it's
essential that we do so, although translating 'example' into every
script and language may be going a bit too far. So I believe that
2606bis is very necessary.

>>  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.

Unfortunately that's true, and that may mean cranking 2606bis repeatedly.
But the alternative (inserting the IETF in a TLD approval process)
is pure lawyer-bait and would no doubt send the IETF's insurer apoplectic.

Ietf mailing list