undefined | Better HN

0 pointsazeemba2y ago0 comments

example.com is officially reserved in the spec for this use case. Is the .example TLD reserved as well?

0 comments

.example, .invalid, .local, .localhost, .onion, and .test are all "special use" domains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom...

"ICANN/IANA has created some Special-Use domain names which are meant for special technical purposes. ICANN/IANA owns all of the Special-Use domain names."

happimess2y ago

It seems true, according to [0]

      ".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 that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a are invalid.
      The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the back IP address and is reserved for such use.  Any other use conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2606

Cyykratahk2y ago

Yes, here are the reserved TLDs [0]:

    test
    example
    invalid
    localhost
    local
    localdomain
    domain
    lan
    home
    host
    corp

0. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chapin-rfc2606bis-00.h...

Karunamon2y ago

Be careful, that is a decade plus old expired draft of a proposed update to RFC 2606. The current version of the standard, including 6761 which updates it, does not reserve most of those.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2606#page-2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6761

You are probably safe using names like .lan and .corp but they are not currently protected by standard in the way example is.

Cyykratahk2y ago

Ah, that's a good point.

jxf2y ago

It is (in RFC 2606), along with .test, .invalid, and .localhost, for similar reasons [0].

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2606

bawolff2y ago

Yes https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.html

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

kibwen2y ago

.example, .invalid, .local, .localhost, .onion, and .test are all "special use" domains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom...

"ICANN/IANA has created some Special-Use domain names which are meant for special technical purposes. ICANN/IANA owns all of the Special-Use domain names."

happimess2y ago

It seems true, according to [0]

      ".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 that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a are invalid.
      The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the back IP address and is reserved for such use.  Any other use conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2606

Cyykratahk2y ago

Yes, here are the reserved TLDs [0]:

    test
    example
    invalid
    localhost
    local
    localdomain
    domain
    lan
    home
    host
    corp

0. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chapin-rfc2606bis-00.h...

Karunamon2y ago

Be careful, that is a decade plus old expired draft of a proposed update to RFC 2606. The current version of the standard, including 6761 which updates it, does not reserve most of those.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2606#page-2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6761

You are probably safe using names like .lan and .corp but they are not currently protected by standard in the way example is.

Cyykratahk2y ago

Ah, that's a good point.

jxf2y ago

It is (in RFC 2606), along with .test, .invalid, and .localhost, for similar reasons [0].

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2606

bawolff2y ago

Yes https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.html

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse