It seems to me that if we think it's a good idea to specify a domain
name that doesn't exist, we're better off clarifying the status of the
ones already specified rather than inventing new ones. Since the
people who manage .ARPA are the exact same people who manage the root
(IANA, operated by ICANN, in both cases), one is as likely to flake as
the other.
In fact, ICANN is quite aware of the reserved names list. In the
current draft of the application process, one of the steps is to
check to see if a proposed name is one of the Reserved ones, in which
case the application fails immediately. Here's their reserved list:
AFRINIC IANA-SERVERS NRO
ALAC ICANN RFC-EDITOR
APNIC IESG RIPE
ARIN IETF ROOT-SERVERS
ASO INTERNIC RSSAC
CCNSO INVALID SSAC
EXAMPLE* IRTF TEST*
GAC ISTF TLD
GNSO LACNIC WHOIS
GTLD-SERVERS LOCAL WWW
IAB LOCALHOST
IANA NIC
*Note that in addition to the above strings, ICANN will reserve
translations of the terms "test" and "example" in multiple
languages. The remainder of the strings are reserved only in the form
included above.
(That's ICANN's footnote.)
Nonetheless, it occurs to me that the set of DNS names that are
reserved or that have special meanings in some protocols are scattered
over a lot of different RFCs. So I wrote a strawman to collect them
all in one place and make a registry of them:
draft-levine-reserved-names-registry-00.txt
I think I got all the names, I did some greps over all of the text
RFCs looking for things that resembled domain names, and I looked to
see what's actually in .ARPA and the root.
If other people agree that it's a good idea to have a place that IANA
can point to for the reserved names, I'd be happy to move this ahead.
Or if we think the situation is OK as it is, we can forget about it.
But I see little wisdom in adding another does-not-exist name with
semantics not meaningfully different from .INVALID or FOO.INVALID.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf