Bug#574561: do not use an invalid TLD
Hi, Am Freitag, den 19.03.2010, 16:45 +0100 schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer: On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 16:30 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: But localhost does not seem the perfect choice either: „The .localhost TLD has traditionally been statically defined in host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back IP address and is reserved for such use. Any other use would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.“ so I am not convinced. The other reserved TLDs are of course even worse (.test, .invalid, .example). What do you think? I think the meaning loop back IP address is really just for the domain name (not the domain) localhost. (as absolute DNS address) Nobody said, that one cannot create subdomains thereof, or that such subdomains may not have other meanings. fair enough, I’ll change it to gateway.localhost right away. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#574561: do not use an invalid TLD
Hi Christoph, Am Freitag, den 19.03.2010, 01:14 +0100 schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer: In principle I like the idea of your package and can even imagine to have other things like: 1.nameserver. 2.nameserver1. ... or eth0. wlan0. eth1. I was already thinking about nameservers. Interfaces are also interesting ideas However,.. may I strongly suggest not to use .current as TLD for the domain names (as gateway.current). Although it's rather unlikely that current will be ever delegated in the root, it's not impossible. RFC 2606 lists some reserved TLDs and I'd suggest to use .localhost, which would fit quite well IMHO, aso it's the gateway of the localhost. To be honest, I was expecting someone to complain once I release the code, and then I can wait for this person to come up with a more proper choice, or will at least find out where to look for proper choices. Thanks for fulfilling my prophecy :-) But localhost does not seem the perfect choice either: „The .localhost TLD has traditionally been statically defined in host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back IP address and is reserved for such use. Any other use would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.“ so I am not convinced. The other reserved TLDs are of course even worse (.test, .invalid, .example). What do you think? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#574561: do not use an invalid TLD
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 16:30 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: But localhost does not seem the perfect choice either: „The .localhost TLD has traditionally been statically defined in host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back IP address and is reserved for such use. Any other use would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.“ so I am not convinced. The other reserved TLDs are of course even worse (.test, .invalid, .example). What do you think? I think the meaning loop back IP address is really just for the domain name (not the domain) localhost. (as absolute DNS address) Nobody said, that one cannot create subdomains thereof, or that such subdomains may not have other meanings. Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Bug#574561: do not use an invalid TLD
Package: libnss-gw-name Severity: important Tags: upstream Hi. In principle I like the idea of your package and can even imagine to have other things like: 1.nameserver. 2.nameserver1. ... or eth0. wlan0. eth1. However,.. may I strongly suggest not to use .current as TLD for the domain names (as gateway.current). Although it's rather unlikely that current will be ever delegated in the root, it's not impossible. RFC 2606 lists some reserved TLDs and I'd suggest to use .localhost, which would fit quite well IMHO, aso it's the gateway of the localhost. Cheers, Chris. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-fermat (SMP w/4 CPU cores; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=en_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
