Bare TLD resolutions

[drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)]

Jay,

On Sep 17, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> We're talking, largely, about error cases *that used to break as you wanted,
> and now might not*.

Yep.  Well, it used to break if you happened to be using the right version of resolver library.  There have been cases where operating system vendors had different search path behaviors in their resolver libraries depending on version and even patch level.  Itâ??s all a bit of a mess.

>> There are a few ccTLDs that provide apex wildcards: theyâ??ll return an
>> â??Aâ?? record for any random goop (.WS is an example), however this
>> behavior is banned from gTLDs (an outcome of the SiteFinder debacle).
> 
> A records being returned for bare TLDs *is* formally banned?
> 
> (Oh: specifically for cctlds.  Got it.)

To be clear, generic TLDs (gTLDs) canâ??t have bare (dotless) TLDs (or wildcards). ICANN has no mechanism by which policy can be imposed on ccTLDs.

> Citation?

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-08-30-en

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140917/496819f2/attachment.pgp>