Discuss mailing list

[Bjorn Peeters <bjorn AT bjornpeeters.be>]

I'll try to be more clear in the future.
Not only does it make setting up the dns easier, it also makes sure there's no unneeded pollution,
no overhead on zones and such (imagine a zone carrying millions of records just for redirects, yuk),
and it also gives 'easy maintenance' a chance.

so... who's gonna figure out all the RFC's involved?

i'm all for a tld like this, but i'll be damned to be looking through all RFC's to see if it's "allowed",
and which way would be best practice.


On 02/15/2013 08:42 PM, Guillaume Parent wrote:

Right. I agree with that, it's just the way you typed it it didn't seem like you were aware of wildcard vhosts in web servers. So I just wanted to be clear in that both solutions would be the same regarding web server setup, but the wildcard.tld one makes DNS setup much easier.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Bjorn Peeters <bjorn AT bjornpeeters.be> wrote:

ofcourse it's no problem configuring 1 site for all .tld domains.
that's not the issue i'm stating.

the issue i'm stating is if you use A records for domains that are basically redirects,
you're telling the client go to my ip xxx to fetch a redirect to site yyy
whereas using a wildcard on the tld itself, you're telling EVERY client, looking for ANY domain within the .tld to go to site zzz, and that site will just forward you to site yyy.

much more logical and much cleaner.

On 02/15/2013 08:23 PM, Guillaume Parent wrote:

> if you were to create a separate A record for each link, you'd end up at a server,
and with vhosts it would ask you were you think you're going...

Wildcard records won't be different in that regard, but anyway it's trivial to configure a web server so that it serves the same site on more than one domain.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Bjorn Peeters <bjorn AT bjornpeeters.be> wrote:

I even doubt it's technically possible by only using A records for each redirect.

The most simple solution, i suppose, would be to get a tld wildcard in there,
redirecting *.tld to 1 location, and have a script at that location handle content.
if you were to create a separate A record for each link, you'd end up at a server,
and with vhosts it would ask you were you think you're going...

So:
- a tld *dedicated* to short urls
- redirecting everything non-existant to register.tld
- requiring ONLY a link and back-end creating a redirect for it with a short url
- and with an expiration of, say, 3 months?
would be quite interesting and an added value.

but someone will have to check RFC's to see if a wildcard on a tld is allowed (i have my doubts? though .invalid and such do the same iirc)
and someone will have to write the script to handle the wildcards.

On 02/15/2013 07:36 PM, Guillaume Parent wrote:

> Remember: every short url would actually be a domain and would have to have its zone.

I wasn't aware that the RFCs forced you to create zones rather than A records after the TLD. It does change things a bit if that's the case.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Bjorn Peeters <bjorn AT bjornpeeters.be> wrote:

Remember: every short url would actually be a domain and would have to have its zone.
that zone would also have to be announced and propagated...

On 02/15/2013 05:14 PM, Guillaume Parent wrote:

It's not pollution if you make a TLD just for that purpose. It's a service.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Bjorn Peeters <bjorn AT bjornpeeters.be> wrote:
Making shortened urls as domains may be interesting, but it would also pollute the dns?

Interesting and possibly usefull as it may be, there are quite a few details to work out

Hunter 9999 <mail AT hunter-9999.de> wrote:

>Am 15.02.2013 um 10:47 schrieb Simon <simon AT hacknix.net>:
>> On 02/14/13 23:11, Hunter 9999 wrote:
>>> You could use register.url as shortener-service and something like Gw1rk.url as shorted URL.
>>
>> That could work. Putting the hash to the left of the TLD part is an
>> interesting idea.
>
>I thought about that too a few weeks ago. ;-)
>
>> Simon
>
>But I think, to shorten an URL you shouldn't have to register or use your name or email.
>How can we reconcile this with our policies?
>
>Daniel Jäger
>
>
>--------
>You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org


--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org