Discuss mailing list

[Mario Rodriguez <admin AT bambusoft.com>]

You are right:
Here is well documented: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761

test -> info page or NXDOMIAN (optional)
example -> info page
invalid -> NXDOMAIN
localhost -> 127.0.0.1

On 03/08/2014 06:14 p.m., Christopher wrote:

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

--------
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 -------- 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