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

[SM <sm at resistor.net>]

At 15:40 02-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
> Now, for example, I happen to believe that "one-off typing error
> is guaranteed to yield a false positive", is a more than
> sufficient _technical_ basis to ban single-alphabetic-letter
> domains at either the top or second levels and to advise
> lower-level domains against their use.  Those are technical
> grounds based on human interface design and information
> retrieval principles, not "the network will break if that is
> done".  But few of the recommendations or reservations we might

Some people may question a technical recommendation that is not based 
on "the network will break".

> make fall into that network-breaking latter category.  Even some
> of those that fall closest to the line involve cases that we
> could "fix" by modifying our applications protocols to lexically
> distinguish between domain names and address literals
> (http://[10.0.0.6]/ anyone?).

Or wait for http://[2001:1890:1112:1::20]/ to catch up.

> But, should those of us who believe that single-letter domains
> are bad news refrain from advocating for that rule because those
> who oppose it could use it to discredit other IETF
> recommendations that might be more important?    I don't know

That's a question to consider before getting into any rule-making.

> The rather odd phrasing there has been the source of a lot of
> discussion in the past in both selected IETF and ICANN circles.
> Some of us read it as "TLDs will be alphabetic only -- no
> digits", not just "cannot be all digits".  The former was
> certainly the IANA intent when we were discussing RFC 1591.
> But does it apply today?  Can ICANN override it?  I can assure
> you that there are groups within ICANN who believe that they can.

RFC 1591 has been swept away by the changes that have taken placed 
since then.  By making a few changes to RFC 5241, we could have a 
document relevant to this topic. :-)

At 16:23 02-07-2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
>         No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld"; or "user at tld"
>         to work reliably.  I suspect there are still mail configuations
>         around that will re-write "user at tld" to "user at tld.ARPA".

http://museum/

>         Should we be writting a RFC which states that MX and address
>         records SHOULD NOT be added to the apex of a TLD zone?

The above TLD has an address record.

>         Should we be writting a RFC which states that single label
>         hostnames/mail domains SHOULD NOT be looked up "as is" in
>         the DNS?

There was a ccTLD operator who expressed the wish for such mail domains.

Regards,
-sm 

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