On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin mailed:
In my area of NJ, virtually every town's "obvious" .com domain names were grabbed by one of two competing would-be service providers. They had absolutely no town-specific content -- but if the town wanted a Web site, they had no choice but to deal with these folks. I have no major problem with first-come, first-served *productive* use of a domain name, but frankly, that's not where the problem has been. The problem has been speculators and cybersquatters.
Uh, why couldn't the town just use <name>.nj.us or whatever the city specific code was long ago and far way.
No. However, they could use ci.<name>.nj.us, and that's where I usually go if I'm looking for a particular city's web site. The reason for this distinction is to support things like: ci.alameda.ca.us City of Alameda co.alameda.ca.us County of Alameda joesshoes.alameda.ca.us Joe's Shoe Shop in Alameda, CA etc. There's an RFC that spells all this out (1680 comes to mind, but not sure that's the right number). Owen
ISI delegated the registration of .US domains a long time ago. See http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/us-domain-delegated.txt At 09:21 AM 3/9/2001 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin mailed:
In my area of NJ, virtually every town's "obvious" .com domain names were grabbed by one of two competing would-be service providers. They had absolutely no town-specific content -- but if the town wanted a Web site, they had no choice but to deal with these folks. I have no major problem with first-come, first-served *productive* use of a domain name, but frankly, that's not where the problem has been. The problem has been speculators and cybersquatters.
Uh, why couldn't the town just use <name>.nj.us or whatever the city specific code was long ago and far way.
No. However, they could use ci.<name>.nj.us, and that's where I usually go if I'm looking for a particular city's web site.
The reason for this distinction is to support things like:
ci.alameda.ca.us City of Alameda co.alameda.ca.us County of Alameda joesshoes.alameda.ca.us Joe's Shoe Shop in Alameda, CA
etc. There's an RFC that spells all this out (1680 comes to mind, but not sure that's the right number).
Owen
[sheesh. people don't edit headers anymore?] On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:43:01AM -0800, Tom Lettington wrote:
ISI delegated the registration of .US domains a long time ago.
...right. And Delegation of nameservice is a CUSTODIALSHIP for the end user organization/entity. The pain in .US was felt when some 3rd-level delegates took on a custodianship for free and then charged folks underneath them, a form of delegation-squatting, with no intent of sheparding the resource until clue was imparted to the more-appropriate organizations. That's just wrong, and triggered involvement of legal entities again. And it is RFC1480. The major mistake was that good will and desire to get folks to Do It Right would remain the prime motivator. -- Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471 Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375 Network Deployment & Management, RCN <joe.provo@rcn.com>
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:21:50AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin mailed:
In my area of NJ, virtually every town's "obvious" .com domain names were grabbed by one of two competing would-be service providers. They had absolutely no town-specific content -- but if the town wanted a Web site, they had no choice but to deal with these folks. I have no major [snip] Uh, why couldn't the town just use <name>.nj.us or whatever the city specific code was long ago and far way.
No. However, they could use ci.<name>.nj.us, and that's where I usually go if I'm looking for a particular city's web site.
The reason for this distinction is to support things like:
ci.alameda.ca.us City of Alameda co.alameda.ca.us County of Alameda joesshoes.alameda.ca.us Joe's Shoe Shop in Alameda, CA
etc. There's an RFC that spells all this out (1680 comes to mind, but not sure that's the right number).
RFC1480 seems to be the one. -c
participants (4)
-
Clayton Fiske -
Joe Provo -
owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us -
Tom Lettington