On Fri, 19 Dec 2025, Joe Abley wrote:
There seems to be some kind of undercurrent of assumption in this thread that RFC 1480 is
a governing legal document for the operation of the US domain, and that the presence or
absence of the word "historic" on the front page of the document will have a
material impact.
Is this a reasonable thing to worry about?
As we have seen from this discussion, some people apparently believe that
the locality domains described in 1480 are obsolete, or don't exist, or
are being phased out, or won't work any more. As Mike noted about similar
domains in Canada, this can case needless problems when you provide a
locality address to some third party who wrongly imagines it doesn't work.
Changing 1480 to historic would surely reinforce this false belief.
In fact, most of what 1480 describes is still true. The locality domains
still exist, and the registration process is roughly what it describes,
with some process changes since the original method, sending email to Jon
Postel, regrettably is no longer available. The only significant change
is that in 2002 the registry started accepting 2LD registrations in
addition to the 1480 names. Since then, in the past two and a half
decades nothing about this has changed.
In short, changing the status of 1480 will cause needless grief to people
using locality names, will cause needless confusion, and will be of no
benefit whatsoever to anyone. So please, can we stop now and talk about
something else?
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
