On May 29, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >> This implies that ICANN can't delegate an all-numeric TLD, and in fact, >> ICANN (in section 2.2.1.3.2, sub-section 1.2.1 of the Applicant's Guide >> Book) states: > I am rather worried when specifications rely on what is implied rather than > what is stated.
Well, what was stated (in RFC 1591, section 2) was: "It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created." We seem to have gotten over that. More seriously, 1123 seems pretty clear to me, even if it is indirect: a valid hostname must have as its highest-level component an (all) alphabetic label. ICANN has followed that restriction in its acceptance of applications for new top-level domains. I would agree that it would be preferable if there was a single document in which a hostname and the distinction between a hostname and a domain name were clearly and unambiguously spelled out. However, there hasn't been enough energy for anyone to actually do this in the past, so we're sort of stuck with what we've got. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
