>2016
>still no .exe domain
>>55110395
You have a problem with your computer. Please open thisisawebsite.exe
File Extensions
ICANN has also considered the possible impact of allowing commonly-used file extensions as TLDs in the
root, examining whether this might result in users or applications confusing URLs with filenames, or create
other vulnerabilities for the user. Examples of such strings include:
• .EXE • .PDF
• .HTML • .TXT
• .DOC • .MP3
• .JPG • .GIF
• .CSV • .XLS
• .PPT • .RTF
• .ZIP
Staff explored this issue by consulting the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (see
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/), as well as conducting some preliminary outreach to browser and
operating system developers on the question of whether TLDs identical to file extensions could cause
technical problems when attempting to be resolved in their particular programs. Responses to these
inquiries have indicated that if there were problems resulting from the addition of TLD labels coinciding with
common file extensions, they would be problems of user confusion rather than breakage in the DNS. It
should also be noted that strings that are also file extensions exist as TLDs in the DNS today without
adverse effects.
>still no .exe domain
Pickup a book fucker. A++ Networking, CISCO networking, Novell, anything really. The fuck outta here with this dumb shit.
>>55110440
The DNS will perform look-ups of a TLD string without consideration to its perceived meaning in another
context. If a user types “mydocument.pdf” into a browser, the auto completion rules of most commonly-used
browsers will add the “http://” notation to the front of that string and perform a DNS lookup. Only by
expressly indicating that the user is looking for a file with file://mydocument.pdf will the browser assume that
a path to a file is indicated rather than a domain name. These are functions of the application, however, not
the DNS. Based on this analysis, there does not appear to be a technical need to restrict common file
extensions from also being TLDs.
The question remaining to be answered is whether there should be any application-oriented limitations on
TLD strings. If ICANN wished to prevent potentially significant problems in the application layer or avoid user
confusion issues resulting from a string like .EXE, it would need to do so based on a defined list of
extensions that were disallowed, a list maintained outside of ICANN and internationally recognized as the
authoritative source for “commonly used file extensions.” Additionally, a mechanism for maintaining and
updating such a list would need to be in place, because new file extensions could become prevalent at any
time. To date, staff has not been able to locate a list of common file extensions that is generally
acknowledged to be authoritative.
Given preliminary feedback that there is not a technical need to prevent file extensions as TLDs, as well as
the lack of an authoritative source of common file extensions to draw from, staff determined that it is not
workable to prevent common file extensions from being used as TLDs.
To summarize, it is the recommendation of the ICANN technical staff to allow applications for TLD strings
that may also be commonly used for file extensions.
>>55110395
.xex
I don't understand why .one isn't more popular yet. It's truly the best new gtld. Backed by a somewhat reliable hoster that you know won't disappear anytime soon.
>no kek
>no lel
>no fag
>no git
>no gud
>no goy
>>55110420
There are .com applications tho.
>Protip
Parking on Afghanistan domains (.af) is paying well right now thanks to millennial memes.
>>55111996
Where are the proofs?
>>55110522
top.kek
new.fag
git.gud/nigger
good.goy/im
>>55112025
command.com
>>55112290
Yes, what do you need my child?
Most of the new approved tlds from a few years ago haven't even been pushed through to reality yet.
>>55110485
That's the extension for Xbox 360 executables.
