At 15:40 02-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
Now, for example, I happen to believe that "one-off typing error
is guaranteed to yield a false positive", is a more than
sufficient _technical_ basis to ban single-alphabetic-letter
domains at either the top or second levels and to advise
lower-level domains against their use. Those are technical
grounds based on human interface design and information
retrieval principles, not "the network will break if that is
done". But few of the recommendations or reservations we might
Some people may question a technical recommendation that is not based
on "the network will break".
make fall into that network-breaking latter category. Even some
of those that fall closest to the line involve cases that we
could "fix" by modifying our applications protocols to lexically
distinguish between domain names and address literals
(http://[10.0.0.6]/ anyone?).
Or wait for http://[2001:1890:1112:1::20]/ to catch up.
But, should those of us who believe that single-letter domains
are bad news refrain from advocating for that rule because those
who oppose it could use it to discredit other IETF
recommendations that might be more important? I don't know
That's a question to consider before getting into any rule-making.
The rather odd phrasing there has been the source of a lot of
discussion in the past in both selected IETF and ICANN circles.
Some of us read it as "TLDs will be alphabetic only -- no
digits", not just "cannot be all digits". The former was
certainly the IANA intent when we were discussing RFC 1591.
But does it apply today? Can ICANN override it? I can assure
you that there are groups within ICANN who believe that they can.
RFC 1591 has been swept away by the changes that have taken placed
since then. By making a few changes to RFC 5241, we could have a
document relevant to this topic. :-)
At 16:23 02-07-2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld"; or "user(_at_)tld"
to work reliably. I suspect there are still mail configuations
around that will re-write "user(_at_)tld" to
"user(_at_)tld(_dot_)ARPA".
http://museum/
The key word word is "reliably". http://museum/ can never
be guarenteed to work.
I can have museum.example.net with a search list containing
example.net. Which one would you expect to match? Note
changing the search order to try single labels "as is" first
is not safe from a security perpective (see RFC 1535 for why
not) as the introduction of a new TLD will break things.
Getting rid of search lists is also a show stopper.
Should we be writting a RFC which states that MX and address
records SHOULD NOT be added to the apex of a TLD zone?
The above TLD has an address record.
It still does not make it a good thing.
Should we be writting a RFC which states that single label
hostnames/mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up "as is" in
the DNS?
There was a ccTLD operator who expressed the wish for such mail domains.
And I can wish for a million dollars to be added to my
savings account. It doesn't mean I'll get it or that the
ccTLD operator should get it.
Mark
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf