In message <alpine.bsf.2.00.1106200055140.23...@joyce.lan>, "John R. Levine" wr ites: > > And your technical solution to ensure "http://apple/"; always resolves > > to "apple." and doesn't break people using "http://apple/"; to reach > > "http://apple.example.net/"; is? > > Whatever people have been doing for the past decade to deal with > http://dk/ and http://bi/. > > As I think I said in fairly easy to understand language, this is not a new > problem. I am not thrilled about lots of new TLDs, but it is silly to > claim that they present any new technical problems.
There is a big difference between a handful of tld breaking the rules, by making simple hostnames resolve to addresses in the DNS, and thousands of companies wanting the rules re-written because they have purchased "<tm>." and want to be able to use "user@tm" reliably. Simple host names, as global identifiers, where phase out in the 1980's for good reasons. Those reasons are still relevant. Mark > Regards, > John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies > ", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
