[142209] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Mon Jun 20 01:27:02 2011
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "20 Jun 2011 00:57:41 -0400."
<alpine.BSF.2.00.1106200055140.23147@joyce.lan>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:25:54 +1000
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106200055140.23147@joyce.lan>, "John R. Levine" wr
ites:
> > And your technical solution to ensure "http://apple/" always resolves
> > to "apple." and doesn't break people using "http://apple/" to reach
> > "http://apple.example.net/" is?
>
> Whatever people have been doing for the past decade to deal with
> http://dk/ and http://bi/.
>
> As I think I said in fairly easy to understand language, this is not a new
> problem. I am not thrilled about lots of new TLDs, but it is silly to
> claim that they present any new technical problems.
There is a big difference between a handful of tld breaking the
rules, by making simple hostnames resolve to addresses in the DNS,
and thousands of companies wanting the rules re-written because
they have purchased "<tm>." and want to be able to use "user@tm"
reliably.
Simple host names, as global identifiers, where phase out in the
1980's for good reasons. Those reasons are still relevant.
Mark
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies
> ",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
