-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
It could just be me but something about http://example doesn't feel
right, I'd rather have http://example.com over http://example
Regards,
Tom McLoughlin
On 13/07/2013 21:11, Ofer Inbar wrote:
Reading some of this discussion leaves me puzzled because I can't tell
which things that some people are saying are intended to be about
"dotless" use of domains, or are intended to be about the expansion of
top level domains in general.
The IAB's statement does not seem to be about whether or not new TLDs
should be issued, or what good or bad effects that will have; the IAB
statement rather seems to assume as a given that new TLDs will come.
Yet a significant portion of the debate on this thread seems to be
about that.
In theory, any of the "classic" TLDs could've been used in a "dotless"
fashion, but they haven't been. What the IAB statement is about is to
urge that none of the new TLDs be used "dotlessly" either. That's a
separate matter from whether they should come into being in the first
place.
What this brings to mind is that we used to have implicit DNS domain
search in the early days of DNS. When edu.com accidentally hijacked
a huge chunk of the Internet, most of the net very quickly got rid of
implicit search, and we got the explicit DNS search feature that many
people are discussing now.
If some new TLD gets used in a dotless fashion in a way that truly
does cause major trouble, I expect we'll see sites all over the net
quickly deploying DNS resolvers that discard A, AAAA, or MX records
at the top level, to protect their users.
-- Cos
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlHht8UACgkQAfPjg38gQ2AhugEAjQ3klca8lGVhrMPXHrfPG070
6lh5a920j5hXy7dWpzUBAIr7Yi2oDsKoicUYj0XZBADNuflcoXJMPGULGOZD0KM4
=isSY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----