Path:
ns3.vrx.net!news2.best.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!burlma1-snr2!not-for-mail
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: NSI may revoke 100's of domains
References: <FqJc4.27$193.1952@burlma1-snr2>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <h_2d4.7$hP4.358@burlma1-snr2>
<854smh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distribution: inet
Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA
X-Copies-To: never
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test60 (5 October 1997)
Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry Margolin)
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <BXnd4.41$hP4.1734@burlma1-snr2>
X-Trace:
+4oQ4HHaxf25j9lSO5T2h6XhBcQW4YqFtOZr+RkCD5Mf/SUMuDmTw+5yRy5jA6Rb+iXGjLvF+HCF!mDz0OyD0eLV5IFLobsqo20485YLE4qKgzEpmQtr96sHJNu4v6z4GkXbn898=
X-Complaints-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:50:57 GMT
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:50:58 GMT
Xref: ns3.vrx.net comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains:9545
In article <854smh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is NOTHING illegal in these domain names or in the
> above records.
>
> There are some constraints on what can be done with a-.com
> as they cannot be or contain "hostnames". A/AAAA/A6 records
> within these domains are illegal but the domains themselves
> are not.
>
> This is just the same as there is nothing illegal in
> "_ftp._tcp.example.com SRV ...". The owner name of a NS
> record does NOT represent a hostname. Only when a A/AAAA/A6
> record is added with that name does it become a illegal
> hostname.
>
> Similar arguments apply to MX records and mail domains.
>
> Obviously there is some new application that doesn't require
> hostnames that I havn't found out about yet as everyone is in
> a rush to register these new domains. Can some kind soul out
> there tell me what it is? :-)
Not likely. The people who registered these domains almost certainly
expected that they could use them in the same way that other domains are
being used.
Unless NSI warned them about the restrictions on how these domains could be
used, I think they accepted the money for them on bad faith.
Perhaps rather than simply de-registering them they should inform the
domain owners of the limitations and offer to return their money if they
want to cancel their registrations. On the off chance that any of the
registrants is willing to live within the limits, they can keep their
domains.
It looks like one guy has grabbed a bunch of them, and he *is* using them
invalidly:
tools:~#414% host www.a-.com
www.a-.com is a nickname for webforward.ascio.net
webforward.ascio.net has address 193.15.14.226
tools:~#416% host www.c-.com
www.c-.com is a nickname for webforward.ascio.net
webforward.ascio.net has address 193.15.14.226
tools:~#417% host www.d-.com
www.d-.com is a nickname for webforward.ascio.net
webforward.ascio.net has address 193.15.14.226
tools:~#420% host www.f-.com
www.f-.com is a nickname for webforward.ascio.net
webforward.ascio.net has address 193.15.14.226
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
