31–40 of 95 posts
Is this a real problem? Usually when I need a testing domain I make a subdomain on an address I or my company owns. dev.kluny.com. Easy.
isn't this solved by using Firefox instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
to be fair, before icann introduced the gtld program, it was a fair assumption that there wouldn't be a .dev tld.
To be honest, programmers should be more aware than most that the spec will change and previously "fair" assumptions won't hold.
An implementation policy that is overtly not a stable specification changed.
Using “test" at some level of the domain name, including the top level if desired, has been the documented correct and safe answer for a long time, and .dev has always been an unnecessarily risky hack. (Amusingly, everyone else doing that hack got screwed because Google was using it as well and realized that if it didn't take control of the TLD and manage it to support it's pre-existing internal use, it ran the risk of someone else doing that.)
I absolutely hate this gTLD crap. The fact that companies can pick up any TLD on the global namespace is absurd. Even worse, the internet community never had a chance to object to these sales. Something that pisses me off even more is that a few months back there was an IETF draft to specify the .home TLD to only resolve local network requests. It seemed pretty reasonable, but there was pushback and it was changed to…
tl;dr - Google bought the .dev gTLD, specified it for internal use, and pushed changes in Chrome to require HTTPS. Is that monopolistic behaviour?
"Is that monopolistic behaviour?" No. Acquiring the TLD has nothing to do with any monopoly, so it's just a browser decision made by Chrome, and it isn't locking anybody out of any markets. It's also technically not even a change to the status quo. Beforehand, you weren't supposed to be using .dev like that. As the article says, you should have been using .test or .invalid. After Google's actions, you still shouldn't…
This is like Ford registering ".car" gTLD for themselves (although actually worse).
> It's also technically not even a change to the status quo.
If it wasn't a change to the status quo, they would have just used the exact same test domains you mention. You're saying that what we should not have done, is okay for Google to do.
I absolutely hate this gTLD crap. The fact that companies can pick up any TLD on the global namespace is absurd. Even worse, the internet community never had a chance to object to these sales. Something that pisses me off even more is that a few months back there was an IETF draft to specify the .home TLD to only resolve local network requests. It seemed pretty reasonable, but there was pushback and it was changed to…
Never had a chance? The rules that would allow this kind of allocation were debated publicly and strenuously for many years in Internet governance circles, with many iterations of drafts and public comment periods. Some of those rules specifically governed which domains should be disallowed because they would have impact on existing utilization, as well as those that needed to be reserved for technical reasons.
tl;dr - Google bought the .dev gTLD, specified it for internal use, and pushed changes in Chrome to require HTTPS. Is that monopolistic behaviour?
Thanks for the tl;dr, but why buy a tld for internal use only? Just so nobody else would? (Maybe it's in TFA; I'll admit I didn't read it)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the tl;dr, but why buy a tld for internal use only? Just so nobody else would? (Maybe it's in TFA; I'll admit I didn't read it)
To ensure that nobody else does. Google uses .dev pervasively for projects - if someone were to buy .dev and sell domains in it on the global DNS infrastructure, then myfancynewproject.dev would resolve to something entirely different from within Google than from outside it.
Do you have any source for this statement?
I had no idea you could buy gTLDs for internal company use. That’s outrageous, and ICANN should have rejected the application. I don’t mind the idea behind gTLDs, but the while thing has been handled pretty poorly.
There are no gTLDs intended only for internal company use. There are many that are intended for only a single companyto use them, though externally.
For example, the .americanexpress gtld (https://www.nic.americanexpress/) will only provide domains to entities affiliated with american express.
Same with .dodge, and .google, and many many others.
ICANN handled this quite well -- they let others object to applications, let anyone who may have a trademark or reason to claim the word was generic come forwards, left time for comments, etc etc.
If you're objecting to this now, not back when the program was being formed, you clearly handled this poorly by not being involved in something you care about.
If you don't care and weren't involved, you also don't have the full picture and your outrage very well might be misplaced.