←back to thread

.INTERNAL is now reserved for private-use applications

(www.icann.org)
563 points joncfoo | 1 comments | 09 Aug 24 16:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
csdreamer7 ◴[09 Aug 24 20:13 UTC] No.41205035[source]▶
Can we get .local or .l added for private-use applications too?
replies(5): >>41205064 #>>41205158 #>>41207055 #>>41208856 #>>41210365 #
duskwuff ◴[09 Aug 24 20:29 UTC] No.41205158[source]▶
.local is already reserved for mDNS.
replies(2): >>41205429 #>>41210351 #
jeroenhd ◴[09 Aug 24 21:10 UTC] No.41205429[source]▶
.local is in this weird state where it's _technically_ not reserved, but most PCs in the world already resolve it with special non-DNS software because of the Bonjour/mDNS protocol.

So you end up with the IETF standardising .local, because Apple was already using it, but ICANN never did much with that standardisation.

I doubt ICANN will actually touch .local, but they could. One could imagine a scheme where .local is globally registered to prevent Windows clients (who don't always support mDNS) from resolving .local domains wrong.

replies(4): >>41205459 #>>41205538 #>>41205804 #>>41207138 #
throw0101d ◴[09 Aug 24 22:16 UTC] No.41205804[source]▶
> .local is in this weird state where it's _technically_ not reserved […] I doubt ICANN will actually touch .local, but they could.

It is. See §2.2.1.2.1, "Reserved Names", of ICANN's gTLD Applicant Guidebook:

* https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/guidebook-ful...

replies(1): >>41206346 #
1. jeroenhd ◴[09 Aug 24 23:49 UTC] No.41206346[source]▶
This document describes the process for requesting gTLDs. Some internal ICANN project could ignore the contents of the guidebook without breaking "the rules". Or they could invent some kind of new TLD system; branded gTLDs didn't exist twenty years ago and I doubt most people would've assumed them to become real, yet blog.google is a real thing that exists.