Just register .local and do not assign it in the same way that 10.x.x.x and
192.168.x.x are registered.
________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Joe Abley
Sent: Fri 6/27/2008 4:31 PM
To: David Conrad
Cc: SM; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
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.
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.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf