Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

[David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>]

On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:22 PM, SM wrote:
> It would cause problems if .local was given out.  I don't recall  
> seeing any RFC requesting IANA to reserve it.

Right.

> > - a label consisting of all numbers
> We already have 888.com.  Some users may ask for .888 given its  
> significance in some cultures.

A TLD of all numbers would be a real pain to deal with.  That is, from  
a software parsing perspective, what's the difference between the  
domain name "127.0.0.1" and the IP address "127.0.0.1"?

> I cannot find a technical reason against PAYPAI.c0m.

Right.  There is a policy reason ("confusingly similar"), but that's  
not a technical, e.g., protocol reason.

> If such a technical review process is doomed, then why should the  
> IETF get into defining technical guidelines outside the ".example"  
> examples?

Because, as you've indicated with the .local example above, protocol  
actions can result in technical justification why a particular label  
used as a TLD could be problematic.  An IANA registry defining these  
that ICANN can point to and tell applicants "no, because it is in the  
IETF-defined 'bad' list" would likely be helpful.

Regards,
-drc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf