Last Comment Bug 520056 - Update Effective TLD list for and
: Update Effective TLD list for and
: verified1.9.0.16, verified1.9.1
Product: Core
Classification: Components
Component: Networking (show other bugs)
: Trunk
: All All
: -- normal (vote)
: mozilla1.9.3a1
Assigned To: Peter Kasting
: Patrick McManus [:mcmanus]
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2009-10-01 13:15 PDT by Norman Rasmussen
Modified: 2009-11-23 10:44 PST (History)
5 users (show)
bugzillamozillaorg_serge_20140323: in‑testsuite-
See Also:
Crash Signature:
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---
Has Regression Range: ---
Has STR: ---

patch for za-nic (313 bytes, patch)
2009-10-01 13:17 PDT, Norman Rasmussen
no flags Details | Diff | Splinter Review
za-nic.patch (550 bytes, patch)
2009-10-01 16:34 PDT, Norman Rasmussen
gerv: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
patch w/email address [Checkin: Comment 14] (1.07 KB, patch)
2009-10-19 14:23 PDT, Peter Kasting
jst: approval1.9.2+
samuel.sidler+old: approval1.9.1.6+
samuel.sidler+old: approval1.9.0.16+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Description Norman Rasmussen 2009-10-01 13:15:09 PDT
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/ Safari/532.0
Build Identifier: 

The effective TLD list does not contain "" or "".  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
Comment 1 Norman Rasmussen 2009-10-01 13:17:01 PDT
Created attachment 404108 [details] [diff] [review]
patch for za-nic
Comment 2 Peter Kasting 2009-10-01 13:32:29 PDT
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. "") were done.
Comment 3 Norman Rasmussen 2009-10-01 16:34:54 PDT
Created attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]

updated patch, re: Peter's comments
Comment 4 Peter Kasting 2009-10-01 16:42:26 PDT
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]

Remember to re-request review.
Comment 5 Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2009-10-02 00:46:49 PDT
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]

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.

Comment 6 Peter Kasting 2009-10-02 10:34:30 PDT
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]

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.
Comment 7 Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2009-10-02 14:49:28 PDT
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 to the list. Now, you may say that people are not running or like 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 and 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.

Comment 8 Peter Kasting 2009-10-02 15:04:03 PDT
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 :)
Comment 9 Peter Kasting 2009-10-16 10:47:58 PDT
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.
Comment 10 Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2009-10-16 23:51:18 PDT
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 :-)

Comment 11 Peter Kasting 2009-10-19 12:13:35 PDT
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.
Comment 12 Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2009-10-19 14:14:47 PDT
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review]

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

Comment 13 Peter Kasting 2009-10-19 14:23:11 PDT
Created attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]

Patch as requested
Comment 14 Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) 2009-10-20 15:20:52 PDT
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]
Comment 15 Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2009-10-23 03:17:16 PDT
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]

Requesting branch approvals.

Comment 16 Daniel Veditz [:dveditz] 2009-10-23 10:44:47 PDT
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.
Comment 17 Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2009-11-04 06:45:40 PST
Checked in on 1.9.2.

Comment 18 Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2009-11-04 06:46:13 PST
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.

Comment 19 Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC) 2009-11-04 15:33:01 PST
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review]
patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]

Approved for and a=ss for release-drivers
Comment 20 Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2009-11-05 03:55:29 PST

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


Comment 21 Al Billings [:abillings] 2009-11-23 10:44:27 PST
Verified for and in source.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.