Bare TLD resolutions

Fred Baker (fred) fred at
Wed Sep 17 22:04:07 UTC 2014

IMHO, since ICANN has created the situation, the ball is in ICANN’s court to say how this works without disrupting name services. Their ill-informed hipshot is not our emergency.

On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at> wrote:

> Pursuant to
> mentioned in the Scotland thread... it seems there are two major potential
> points of possible collision:
> 1) User network uses "fake" TLD which is no longer fake, and local 
> resolver server blows it
> 2) User network blows it worse, and tries to resolve a monocomponent name
> off non-local servers.
> The latter would seem to be avoidable by making sure that *DNS resolution
> of bare TLDs always returns NXDOMAIN*.
> Is that a requirement for a TLD?
> If it isn't, does anyone know of any domains dumb enough to actual 
> return something for a lookup on the bare TLD?
> Is there actually *any* good reason why a lookup on a bare TLD ("com.")
> might return a valid record?
> And what about Naomi?
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates          2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list