unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

Jay Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Sun Jun 19 22:47:14 CDT 2011


----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>

> >i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference
> >between http://sony/ and http://sony./
> 
> Neither do any of the browsers I use, which resolve http://bi/ as well
> as http://dk./ just fine. Whatever problem unqualified TLD names
> might present to web browsers has been around for a long time and the
> world hasn't come to an end.

C'mon, John; you've just been skimming the thread?

The problem caused by making monocomponent name resolution non-deterministic
has been covered in pretty decent detail, just today.

We didn't say http://apple/ wouldn't work... we said it wouldn't work
(as previously expected) *if someone already had an internal machine called
"apple"*... at which point http://apple/ might resolve to a new and different
thing which matched http://apple./

Saying "that's very unlikely to happen" only displays a fairly shallow 
knowledge of the *number* of different categories and shapes of large
IP networks that exist in the world.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
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 mailing list