←back to thread

.INTERNAL is now reserved for private-use applications

(www.icann.org)
563 points joncfoo | 6 comments | 09 Aug 24 16:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.984s | source | bottom
Show context
dawnerd ◴[09 Aug 24 23:04 UTC] No.41206087[source]▶
I'm still peeved they let google take over .dev when they knew tons of us used that in the older days for dev environments.
replies(3): >>41206099 #>>41210702 #>>41221314 #
TheRealPomax ◴[09 Aug 24 23:06 UTC] No.41206099[source]▶
to be fair, ".dev" is not a full word, unlike INTERNAL or EXAMPLE. You're free to petition them to reserve .DEVELOPMENT, though, of course.
replies(2): >>41206296 #>>41208751 #
1. cowsup ◴[10 Aug 24 11:26 UTC] No.41208751[source]▶
.com is not a full word either (company), or .org (organization), .net (internet), .gov (government), ...
replies(2): >>41208902 #>>41210468 #
2. PartiallyTyped ◴[10 Aug 24 12:06 UTC] No.41208902[source]▶
I thought .com was for "commercial".
replies(1): >>41209085 #
3. dsr_ ◴[10 Aug 24 12:48 UTC] No.41209085[source]▶
.com is for .com. You can interpret it any way you'd like and it doesn't make a difference to anyone who isn't currently interested in the history of DNS.

My preferred reading is .com for commonlymisinterpretedbypeoplewhodonotreadrfcsbutitdoesnotmatterintheslightest, which is a Welsh word meaning "oddly shaped sheep".

replies(1): >>41213226 #
4. TheRealPomax ◴[10 Aug 24 16:13 UTC] No.41210468[source]▶
.com is literally the opposite of a "reserved to never be used" word though?
replies(1): >>41211295 #
5. saghm ◴[10 Aug 24 18:24 UTC] No.41211295[source]▶
I'm not sure how that leads to the conclusion that other short, convenient TLDs like `.dev` should just be given to companies like Google to use very sparingly, if at all.

EDIT: Looks like I misunderstood what Google having .dev meant in the above discussion; domains using it are available to purchase through their registrar (or more precisely resellers since I guess they don't sell directly anymore)

6. 8organicbits ◴[11 Aug 24 00:40 UTC] No.41213226{3}[source]▶
Isn't that proposed in RFC 920?

> Commercial, any commercial related domains meeting the second level requirements.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc920#page-2