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 <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > Pursuant to > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en) > > 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 > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail