Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

* Marshall Eubanks · * Fri Jun 27 12:49:00 2008

Dear Lou;
On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Lou Katz wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best

practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the
logic

that .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name

servers.
Who wants to be the first to try to register *.local?
They should have been following RFC 2606.

Regards
Marshall

Thinking about it a little more, what about the common use of

'localhost.localdomain' for 127.0.0.1 in most versions of *nix? I
can

just imagine the chaos that registering a *.localdomain TLD will

cause.

.localhost is already reserved through RFC 2606, so this should not
be

a problem. To quote :

The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in
host

DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back
IP

address and is reserved for such use. Any other use would conflict

with widely deployed code which assumes this use.
Methinks it is time to update RFC2606 to reflect common practices
before
the new ICANN policies take effect.

If you can think of a list, it probably would...

Having had the need to construct a few TLDs for internal use, I hope
that some

new RFC will address this and reserve some
(e.g. .internal, .internal# (where # is

any fully numeric string), .local)? I really don't care what they
are called,

but I do need more than one.

There are 4 already,
.test .example .invalid .localhost
. I suspect that .local should also be reserved, which would make 5.
It seems that .internal# should just be blocked, not reserved. Before,
the feeling was that

the best blockage was a reservation, but as I read the ICANN
presentation, if .internal

was reserved, .internal# could be blocked too without an explicit
reservation.
Regards
Marshall

Marshall
Jon

<snip>
--
-=[L]=-
Helping to interpret the lives of the animals.