unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
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.
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