>From my reading of the text
(http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-12.txt),
it would be more accurate to state that some reserved words that can *not*
be used as TLDs are about to be defined. In any case, I doubt that many
Internet users are clamoring for names in the .test, .example, .invalid, or
.localhost TLDs.
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> Some new tlds are about to be defined by the ietf.
>
> >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >X-Authentication-Warning: opsmail.internic.net: majordom set
> sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
> >Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:50:18 +0200
> >From: Andras Salamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-12.txt
> >References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 01:36:37PM +1100, Robert Elz wrote:
> >> The draft
> >> draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-12.txt
> >> has been floating around DNSIND now for a long time (in that,
> and previous
> >> incarnations). It hasn't been changed, or discussed now in
> months, so it
> >> is time to finally decide its fate I believe.
> >
> >The sooner reserved domains like example.{com,net,org} can be officially
> >set aside, the sooner we can start standardising (and politely asking
> >others to regularise) our usage of examples in documents about the DNS.
> >
> >The .localhost convention has also been in need of formalisation for a
> >long while.
> >
> >I believe this is a sound document and should advance.
> >
> >-- Andras Salamon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Don't bother me. I'm living happily ever after.
>
