Full Disclosure mailing list archives

RE: Verisign abusing .COM/.NET monopoly, BIND releases new


From: "Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards () hq adiscon com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:02:57 +0200

big oops. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Actually, I read the RFC
incorrectly. It says:

####
 The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also currently has the
   following second level domain names reserved which can be used as
   examples.
####

The important part is "The ... IANA ... has the follwoing domain names
reserved...". 

So, in theory, .test and the other TLDs could also be put into
"production" and this would still be right as of the RFC. Mhh... 

Rainer

I don't like what Verisign does. But 
localhost.localdomain.com is not a
safe domain name. I'd recommend either to use one registered to your
organization or use one of those from
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html. Actually, I would go 
for ".test".

That's an RFC to be careful of since some numpty decided that
example.com|.org|.net should not only actually resolve, but 
have some Redhat
box running a webserver answer for it as well.   At least it 
points you to
RFC2606 which I find somewhat ironic.   I always used to use 
example.com for
docs but I can't really anymore though as Rainer said, 
example.test seems to
be OK.
For now...

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


Current thread: