--On Tuesday, 01 July, 2008 09:58 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
Another like restriction that might be investigated is whether
http://microsoft/ or other similar corporate TLDs would work
as intended with deployed legacy browsers.
I suspect (but have not tried) that if you simply type
'Microsoft' into the address bar of some browsers you might
have the keyword immediately interpreted as a search term, not
an address to visit.
I suspect that, if Microsoft spent a hundred thousand dollars or
more to secure "microsoft." as a TLD, at least one of those
browsers would be swiftly corrected in a way that they would
find satisfactory.
The issue with billg(_at_)microsoft is a little more complex. After
extended discussions, rfc2821bis still does not permit
RCPT TO:<bill(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)>
(note trailing dot) and there are some other issues about trying
to use TLDs as the only label in an email address.
But none of that counts. There have been more than enough
actors who have wanted TLDs that violate one rule or another,
assuming that applications authors will sort things out as
needed, maybe even with IETF help. And there have been more
than enough who believe that, if some construction they want
works with the world's most popular browser, then it is
sufficient (non-web protocols be d**ned).
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf