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

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 08 July 2008 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C423A6B77; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B489E3A6B77 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.442
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4rRRMXqppbKT for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E86C3A69B9 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m681EnCC004499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:14:55 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:14:48 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: Your message of <> <BLU137-W18376D2DBA85C8F712C06F93980@phx.gbl> <> <> <18BA25DED8BFD9F794A10E84@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <18BA25DED8BFD9F794A10E84@p3.JCK.COM>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/7659/Mon Jul 7 14:51:18 2008 on
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
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"

John C Klensin wrote:
>      What do
> you think would happen to that recommendation, and the benefits
> it affords, if the size of the root zone increased by an order
> of magnitude or so?  

2 orders?  20K?

No, sorry.  Think 3-4 orders of magnitude.


Let me explain: I'm not against more TLDs.  Quite the opposite.  (I appointed by 
Postel to participate in the pre-ICANN committee tasked with increasing the number.)

But there is a paradigmatic difference between a TLD defined and operated to 
mediate on behalf of a general and diverse population, versus one constrained to 
a narrow and controlled constituency, such as a single company.

The number of the latter is quite large.  And by that I mean *really* large.

And all of the questions I asked 10 years ago said that TLDs on that latter 
scale would be problematic to the root.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
Ietf mailing list