[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

Subject: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: jeff-kell at utc.edu (Jeff Kell)
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:36:01 -0400
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On 6/19/2011 9:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names, universally.

Not to mention the folks of the Redmond persuasion with their
additionally ambiguous \\hostname single names.

(In the absence of a configured search domain, Windows won't even try
DNS for a single name through it's own resolver libraries; although
nslookup will).

Jeff

References:
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
  - From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
  - From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
  - From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
  - From: ghira at mistral.co.uk (Adam Atkinson)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
  - From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
  - From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
  - From: jbaino at gmail.com (Jeremy)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
  - From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)

Prev by Date: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
Next by Date: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
Previous by thread: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
Next by thread: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread