ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Jun 18 08:22:27 UTC 2011

On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

> ----- 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 ".".

You are, indeed, wrong.

In . lives a pointer to apple. consisting of one or more NS records and possibly
some A/AAAA glue for those nameservers if they are within apple.

In the apple. zone file lives everything else about apple. including the SOA record
for apple.

Just as in COM lives one or more NS records for APPLE.COM and possibly some
A/AAAA glue for NS that live within APPLE.COM. Inside the APPLE.COM zone
file, OTOH, lives everything else about APPLE.COM including the SOA

> The people who operate the "apple" zone can apply an A record to "www.apple"...
> Oh.  Wait.
> 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.  :-)

Have a nice day.


More information about the NANOG mailing list