Douglas Otis wrote:
[about the 2606bis draft]
Frank's list still needs to be extended to include names like
".local" and perhaps ".nntp" to permit address converters a
safe mode of operation.
The idnabis-test-tlds I-D tries to say that it is no complete
list of all reserved TLDs. But it creates a registry of such
TLDs, stating that the IANA registry will be also incomplete:
.onion, anybody ?
The .local issue is mentioned as "deserving its own document"
in appendix A. ITYM .uucp instead of .nntp - there are a few
historic cases that could or even should be reserved, but like
.local that should be done in an appropriate context, not in
a memo mainly covering IDN test TLDs (plus what RFC 2606 had).
this draft's list is in need of greater accommodations when
"Reserved TLDs" becomes "Permitted non-DNS TLDs".
ACK, not everything is as obvious as "invalid", "example", and
"test". The required "IETF review" would be typically based
on an I-D resulting in a RFC, with an intentional loophole for
cases when the specification is "elsewhere" (ICANN, ITU, etc.).
The reserved TLD registry gets pointers to the specifications,
and the relevant spec. can explain the fine print of say .uucp
IOW I think your concerns are alreay addressed in the draft...
I propose to change the list, I really didn't think about ADSP
when writing the 2606bis draft. It's about IDNAbis, triggered
by the recent "examples in 2821bis" debate on the SMTP list.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html