>"We have known-bad data; let's go with that." (louder sigh) Yeah.
>For the name ".lan", we can see that it has been used for quite over a >decade to have a specific network purpose. ... > That is a good enough reason to reserve it. I agree, there's ample evidence of it being (mis)used in the wild, e.g., check the headers on this message. Also, there is a large South American airline group called LAN, which is a Spanish acronym for "national airline". Assuming that vanity TLDs don't totally crater, they'll be along soon enough, and they'd be unlikely to ask for or be satisfied by anything else since LAN is their real name, and the name everyone knows them by. >> IMO the draft is a reasonable attempt at harm reduction. For some >definition of harm. It seems ICANN's policy-making fora want the IETF to >produce a list of "dangerous" TLD strings (on technical grounds) so that >they can point at some RFC and say everything else can be classed as "safe >to delegate". Which is at best a very misguided approach IMO. > >And, fortunately, that's not what this draft says. Why impute that? Anyone who's been to a few ICANN meetings will confirm that's exactly what the domain speculators who dominate ICANN will say. These are, after all, the same people who said in Singapore that all of the technical issues with software handling new TLDs, including IDN issues in e-mail, could be resolved in a few months. I would be happier with a new section between sections 2 and 3 called something like Limitations of this Document that explicitly says that this document is only about the three or four name strings it discusses, the authors and the IETF are making no statement about which if any other strings might or might not merit similar treatment. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
