ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
jra at baylink.com
Sat Jun 18 03:36:51 UTC 2011
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> apple.com is a delegation from .com just as apple is a delegation from
> > apple. and www.apple. are *not* -- and the root operators may throw
> > their hands up in the air if anyone asks them to have anything in
> > their
> > zone except glue -- rightly, I think; it's not a degree of
> > complexity
> > that's compatible with the required stability of the root zone.
> Sir, either you are very confused, or, I am. I am saying that TLDs
> behave with the same delegation rules as SLDs, which I believe
> to be correct. You are claiming that TLDs are in some way magical
> and that the ability to delegate begins at SLDs. I think the fact that
> there is data in the COM zone separate from the root indicates that
> I am correct.
I could be wrong--Cricket Liu I am not--but the point I'm trying to make
is that the record "apple." does not *live* inside the zone server for
the "apple" TLD; it lives in ".".
The people who operate the "apple" zone can apply an A record to "www.apple"...
I'm sorry: you're right. It's been so long since I climbed that far
up the tree, I'd forgotten, the TLDs don't *live* in the root servers.
So people operating a cTLD like "apple." would have to run their
own analog of gtld-servers.net, to which the zone would be delegated,
and such fanciness could happen there.
Ok; so *this* bit of opposition was a red herring. :-)
-- jr '<litella>' a
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
More information about the NANOG