There are also other examples when the "domain" invalid. was used as a
placeholder for nonexisting delegation to nowhere.
However, it would probably need another document declaring that the
domain invalid. would never be delegated as a gTLD to anyone ever
*trollface*
Libor
On 17. 06. 25 20:14, Joe Abley wrote:
On 17 Jun 2025, at 20:05, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
On Jun 17, 2025, at 10:54, Joe Abley <jab...@strandkip.nl> wrote:
Using "." to mean "not available" has some history and it feels nice not to
deviate;
I would generally agree, but in this case noname (".") has a particular meaning
in the DNS that it doesn't in, for example MX records. Thus my concern.
Well, an MX target is a hostname to which packets are sent; an NS target is a
hostname to which packets are sent. So I'm not sure the situations are so
different.
In both cases a client that for some reason thinks the empty string is a valid
hostname might try to resolve it. Such resolution will look for a root zone
apex A or AAAA record. There isn't one; the cacheable NODATA responses from the
root servers should confirm that to be the case.
I agree that software is riddled with crazy nonsense and nothing is impossible,
but what I would expect to see is either nothing much or increased volumes of
./IN/A and ./IN/AAAA at the root servers.
The root servers are well-provisioned to be able to handle junk, which is good
because junk is mainly what they receive. But yes, science seems appropriate.
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
