Update Effective TLD list for .za.net and .za.org

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla1.9.3a1

Status

()

Core
Networking
RESOLVED FIXED
8 years ago
8 years ago

People

(Reporter: Norman Rasmussen, Assigned: Peter Kasting)

Tracking

({verified1.9.0.16, verified1.9.1})

Trunk
mozilla1.9.3a1
verified1.9.0.16, verified1.9.1
Points:
---
Bug Flags:
in-testsuite -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(status1.9.2 beta2-fixed, status1.9.1 .6-fixed)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 2 obsolete attachments)

1.07 KB, patch
Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)
: approval1.9.1.6+
Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)
: approval1.9.0.16+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Reporter)

Description

8 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/3.0.195.24 Safari/532.0
Build Identifier: 

The effective TLD list does not contain ".za.net" or ".za.org".  I have asked the .net and za-nic registrars before (circa Jul'08) if they would include it, but they have not responded.

Patch coming shortly.

Reproducible: Always
(Reporter)

Comment 1

8 years ago
Created attachment 404108 [details] [diff] [review]
patch for za-nic
(Assignee)

Updated

8 years ago
Attachment #404108 - Flags: review?(gerv)
(Assignee)

Comment 2

8 years ago
Comment on attachment 404108 [details] [diff] [review]
patch for za-nic

I'm not sure these should go here; perhaps they should instead be split into two pieces that go near .net and .org.  This is how the CentralNic domain names (e.g. ".se.net") were done.
(Reporter)

Comment 3

8 years ago
Created attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]
za-nic.patch

updated patch, re: Peter's comments
Attachment #404108 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #404108 - Flags: review?(gerv)
(Assignee)

Comment 4

8 years ago
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]
za-nic.patch

Remember to re-request review.
Attachment #404157 - Flags: review?(gerv)
Attachment #404157 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review-
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]
za-nic.patch

We don't accept submissions not from the owner of the domain. If we add someone's domain to the list without their permission and their websites break, that would be really bad. If they don't ask us, we have to assume they are happy with the way things work now.

Gerv
(Assignee)

Comment 6

8 years ago
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]
za-nic.patch

That doesn't make sense.  You accept submissions from me and Pam.  This case is obviously broken today (try actual usage), and there's a registrar with a public policy that backs up the suggested fix.

Please rethink.
Attachment #404157 - Flags: review- → review?(gerv)
I'm happy to update the list when someone says "hey, this ICANN-accredited registrar's policy document over here says something different". But adding pseudo-registrars is a different kettle of fish. 

Think of the trouble it would cause if we added google.com to the list. Now, you may say that people are not running za.net or za.org like google.com. But without asking them, we have no way of knowing what they are doing. Maybe they have valid uses for cookies shared across the whole domain. It's not right for us to break that without their permission.

If someone from the owners of za.net and za.org comes in here and says "sure, go right ahead, we've looked at what it'll mean and it's clearly the right thing" (like CentralNIC did) then no problem, let's go.

Gerv
(Assignee)

Comment 8

8 years ago
I don't agree, but the fastest way to resolve this would definitely be to get an official reply from the owners.  Accordingly, I've emailed the contact address for ZA NiC, and CCed you.  Please correct or add to my mail as necessary :)
(Assignee)

Comment 9

8 years ago
Gerv, are you OK with doing this based on the email reply we got?  I don't think your final message to the registrar looked like one that needed a further response.
We got a reply? It must have gone to my spam folder. Can you give me the message details and I'll dig it out :-)

Gerv
(Assignee)

Comment 11

8 years ago
Ah, checking the mail again, it looks like they replied to me without CCing you.  Sorry for not noticing that.  I have forwarded you the reply.
Attachment #404157 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]
za-nic.patch

Please put the email address of the guy who emailed us in the comment (like centralnic). With that change, r=gerv.

Gerv
(Assignee)

Comment 13

8 years ago
Created attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]

Patch as requested
Assignee: nobody → pkasting
Attachment #404157 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Status: UNCONFIRMED → ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed: true
(Assignee)

Updated

8 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]


http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cdebeb90dbd8
Attachment #407115 - Attachment description: patch w/email address → patch w/email address [Checkin: Comment 14]
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 8 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite-
Keywords: checkin-needed
Hardware: x86 → All
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.3a1
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]

Requesting branch approvals.

Gerv
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.2?
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.1.5?
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.0.16?
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]

The only reason we'd want this on the 1.9.0/1.9.1 branches is to stay in sync with 1.9.2 so we'll wait for that to get approved.

At this stage in 1.9.2's life-cycle the drivers are not looking at the huge list of non-blocker apprvals so you'll need to bug people on IRC or email to get any notice.
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.1.5?
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.0.16?

Updated

8 years ago
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.2? → approval1.9.2+
Checked in on 1.9.2.

http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/c37fe45bfce822ed2e4ea141f8ba1b7793aee4db

Gerv
status1.9.2: --- → final-fixed
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]

Renominating to keep 1.9.1 and 1.9.0 in sync.

Gerv
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.1.6?
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.0.16?
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]

Approved for 1.9.1.6 and 1.9.0.16. a=ss for release-drivers
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.1.6?
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.1.6+
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.0.16?
Attachment #407115 - Flags: approval1.9.0.16+
1.9.0.x:

Checking in netwerk/dns/src/effective_tld_names.dat;
/cvsroot/mozilla/netwerk/dns/src/effective_tld_names.dat,v  <--  effective_tld_names.dat
new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11
done

1.9.1.x:

http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/b9e65f1a7d7976d408e6fcfea2b570733cebc018

Gerv
status1.9.1: --- → .7-fixed
Keywords: fixed1.9.0.16
status1.9.1: .7-fixed → .6-fixed
Verified for 1.9.0.16 and 1.9.1.6 in source.
Keywords: fixed1.9.0.16 → verified1.9.0.16, verified1.9.1
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.