IMHO, since ICANN has created the situation, the ball is in ICANN’s court to say how this works without disrupting name services. Their ill-informed hipshot is not our emergency. On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
Pursuant to
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en)
mentioned in the Scotland thread... it seems there are two major potential points of possible collision:
1) User network uses "fake" TLD which is no longer fake, and local resolver server blows it
2) User network blows it worse, and tries to resolve a monocomponent name off non-local servers.
The latter would seem to be avoidable by making sure that *DNS resolution of bare TLDs always returns NXDOMAIN*.
Is that a requirement for a TLD?
If it isn't, does anyone know of any domains dumb enough to actual return something for a lookup on the bare TLD?
Is there actually *any* good reason why a lookup on a bare TLD ("com.") might return a valid record?
And what about Naomi?
Cheers, -- jra
-- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274