Discuss mailing list

[Christopher <weblionx AT gmail.com>]

I would think that 'invalid' returns nxdomain, not a loop-back IP address.

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Mario Rodriguez <admin AT bambusoft.com> wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> Accordingly to RFC2606 -> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606 this words are
> reserved for specific use:
>
> test -> "is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS related
> code"
> example -> "is recommended for use in documentation or as examples"
> invalid -> "is intended for use in online construction of domain names that
> are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a glance are invalid."
> localhost -> "point to the loop back IP address and is reserved for such
> use"
>
> "Depending on the nature of the test or example, it might be best for it to
> be referencing a TLD permanently reserved for such purposes."
>
>
> As a second level domains (all under T1 operator control)
> test.TLD, example.TLD and invalid.TLD... may respond with a page explaining
> this (as Philipp sugests) or point to 127.0.0.1 (as Jeff sugests)
> localhost.TLD must respond with 127.0.0.1 ip address
>
> As a third+ level domains (under user control)
> test.xdomain.TLD, example.xdomain.TLD and invalid.xdomain.TLD... whatever
> user wants
> localhost.xdomain.TLD must respond with 127.0.0.1 ip address
>
> This RFC is a best practice and not a standard, so both options are correct
> and I agree with a policy definition.
> IMHO we can follow RFC recommendation and cover all options this way:
> test -> info page
> example -> info page
> invalid -> 127.0.0.1
> localhost -> 127.0.0.1
>
>
>
>
> On 01/08/2014 11:00 a.m., Jeff Taylor wrote:
>
> I just went through my records and I have these entries for dyn, oss, and
> parody.  I just added the records to pirate so they should be showing up
> shortly.  Each domain has a single A-record pointing to 127.0.0.1.
>
> I know this has been discussed before, but we should probably write it up as
> a policy requiring every opennic TLD admin ensure they have these records in
> place.  It seems like a good policy to follow.
>
> On 08/01/2014 06:52 AM, Philipp Schafft wrote:
>
> reflum,
>
> On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 13:17 +0100, Calum McAlinden wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I have been discussing with the DNS reports (DNS checker report for
> group opennic, by FurNIC) with ph3-der-loewe on IRC.
>
> The check has been consistently failing for some time, due to the
> absence of several example.TLD and localhost.TLD entries.
>
> We believe that each TLD should have a valid example record pointing
> to a page that clearly explains this, much like example.org. This not
> only is useful for testing purposes, but also in documentation so as
> to avoid bias towards a domain.
>
> *nods, nods*
> FurNIC runs an example.fur. There is also a webserver running on that
> name. Feel free use it as refernece.
>
>
> What are your opinions on having a standard example entry for each TLD?
>
> I'm supporting this.
>
> And if there are any technical questions and/or problems just ask. :)
>
> Both of us are also on IRC.
>
> Have a nice day!
>
>
>
>
>
> --------
> 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
>