On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:17:39AM +1100, James Mitchell wrote: > 1. Requirements on composition of TLDs > no requirements over and above normal host names > i.e. can be 1*63 [a-z] [0-9] and hyphen, cannot start or end with hypen etc.. > [I think we can all agree that the internet will not break if ".8-ball" was > added to the root, as to whether it works...] >
It seems to me we can all agree that the Internet will not break if you register a domain name o'reilly.com, either. But you're not allowed to, not because of the DNS rules but because of the hostname rules and a suggestion in the DNS specification that things will go better if you follow the hostname rules too. Why not relax that restriction? Why should we be beholden to old-timey restrictions? > For IDNs, must be valid a-label and u-label Why? That seems like it's "just" a policy preference. Why should the IETF have anything to say about it? Why shouldn't the top level labels also conform to JFC Morfin's Intersem plans, using multiple [a-z][a-z]-- prefixes? What basis do we have for telling ICANN what valid DNS labels they're allowed to pick? > 2.1 RFC1123 > application developers may have made assumptions about composition of domain > names; applications may not recognise new TLD. this has been seen with > .museum.. > > 2.2 Confusion with IP Addresses > TLDs that begin with a digit may be confused with IP addresses > TLDs that begin with 0x may be confused with IP addresses > TLDs that are 0-255 may be confused with IP addresses and thus never looked > up in DNS as suggested in RFCxxx > [perhaps some of these points become restrictions on the composition of TLDs] Or perhaps, in the interests of making changes near or at the root incrementally, we adopt the restrictive proposal in the draft and then write a subsequent one, informed perhaps by more study, that opens the door wider. > 3. Validation of TLDs > Application developers should not make assumptions about the composition of > TLDs, or the frequency in which they are allocated. if validation is required > then looking up the entry in the DNS is a foolproof way to know if a TLD has > been allocated. Consideration should be made to reduce queries to the root. > Static lists should be avoided. > Note that we already have an RFC that says roughly what (3) says, and so we don't need to say it again. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
