unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
dougb at dougbarton.us
Mon Jun 20 05:32:59 UTC 2011
On 06/19/2011 19:31, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:22:46 -0700
>> From: Michael Thomas<mike at mtcc.com>
>>> that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect
>>> that ICANN could also have an impact on this by having applicants sign
>>> something that says "i know that my single-label top level domain name
>>> will not be directly usable the way normal domain names are and i intend
>>> to use it only to register subdomain names which will work normally."
>> Isn't this problem self regulating? If sufficient things break with a
>> single label, people will stop making themselves effectively unreachable,
> alas, no. if someone adds something to the internet that doesn't work right
> but they ignore this and press onward until they have market share, then the
> final disposition will be based on market size not on first mover advantage.
I think you're going to see 2 primary use cases. Those who will do it
anyway, either because they are ignorant of the possible downsides, or
don't care. The other use case will be the highly risk-averse folks who
won't unconditionally enable IPv6 on their web sites because it will
cause problems for 1/2000 of their customers.
If it will make $YOU (not nec. Paul or Michael) feel better, sure
produce an RFC. Shout it from the housetops, whatever. You're not going
to change anyone's mind.
Meanwhile, David is right. Further pontificating on this topic without
even reading the latest DAG is just useless nanog-chin-wagging.
Completely aside from the fact that the assumption no one in the ICANN
world has put any thought into this for the last 10+ years is sort of
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
More information about the NANOG