At 16:18 27-06-2008, David Conrad wrote:
A TLD of all numbers would be a real pain to deal with. That is, from
a software parsing perspective, what's the difference between the
domain name "127.0.0.1" and the IP address "127.0.0.1"?
The domain name may be confused with an IP address. That can be
avoided by not allocating numbers from zero to 255 as TLDs. There
was a recent thread on the IDNA mailing list about other
representations of IPv4.
Because, as you've indicated with the .local example above, protocol
actions can result in technical justification why a particular label
used as a TLD could be problematic. An IANA registry defining these
that ICANN can point to and tell applicants "no, because it is in the
IETF-defined 'bad' list" would likely be helpful.
The IETF can only publish such a list for protocols within IETF's
scope, i.e. Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the
criteria and procedures specified in RFCs, including Proposed, Draft
and full Internet Standards and Best Current Practice documents, and
any other RFC that calls for IANA assignment. That covers
assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as domain names
for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of specialised address
blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and (c) experimental assignments.
That's different from an IETF-based "bad" list. .local can be
covered once a RFC meeting the criteria is published. It doesn't
fall under RFC 2606. That RFC lists top level
domain names reserved for use in private testing, as examples in
documentation, and the like.
Ietf mailing list