[dns-operations] Hearing first complains about failing internal resolving due to .prod TLD

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 12.09.14 05:47, Paul Vixie wrote:
> in fairness, had we adopted the left-to-right presentation format
> preferred at first by our UK colleagues, we would have always had to
> write fully qualified names as .tld.sld.3ld, that is, the "root dot"
> would not have been optional, and there would have been no confusion
> between unqualified, partially qualified, and fully qualified domain names.
> 

Even better, the DNS would not have turned into the vanity show it is
today. But then, that means none of today's behemoths would exist.

I find this all ironic. It was known creating 'arbitrary' labels at the
root will lead to that. Not that the very same problem does not exist
with old TLDs, good example being the ws ccTLD. I got bit by that
creating a 'ws' server and trying to address it with unqualified name
just like any of the rest. Imagine, if .corp decide to have an A/AAAA
(or some other fancy) record one could not have a 'corp' server too.
Pick your favorite new gTLD for better example...

It's too late to teach Internet users and existing setups/applications
to use fully qualified names and put a dot at the end (because of the
TLD.TLD problem, too).

One could even argue the damage in wasted resources, lost business, bad
service etc for all concerned is way more than the benefits being
created by the new gTLDs for a much smaller group of people.

C'est la vie..

Daniel