Status

()

Core
Networking: Domain Lists
RESOLVED FIXED
7 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: gerv, Assigned: gerv)

Tracking

unspecified
mozilla2.0
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(status1.9.2 .17-fixed, status1.9.1 .19-fixed)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment)

(Assignee)

Description

7 years ago
Dear Publicsuffix,

In he near future we will start giving out registrations for foo.bv.nl to dutch companies that are a registered BV (besloten vennootschap). For correct browser behaviour we would like to be included in the list. Also, can you advise on how to get this same issue solved on IE and safari?
Attached you will find our diff.

Regards,
Marius Karthaus

BVpuntNL


bv.diff

--- tld.dat	2010-12-10 06:10:56.000000000 +0100
+++ tld.bv.dat	2010-12-12 21:42:26.821109002 +0100
@@ -2647,7 +2647,8 @@
 // Confirmed by registry <Antoin.Verschuren@sidn.nl> (with technical
 // reservations) 2008-06-08
 nl
-
+// BV.nl will be a registry for dutch BV's (besloten vennootschap)
+*.bv.nl
 // no : http://www.norid.no/regelverk/index.en.html
 // The Norwegian registry has declined to notify us of updates. The web pages
 // referenced below are the official source of the data. There is also an
(Assignee)

Comment 1

6 years ago
This diff says that we should treat <something>,bv.nl as a public suffix - and therefore that the website for e.g. Foo B.V. is going to be registered at foo.<something>.bv.nl. However, the English text of the email says that websites are going to be registered at foo.bv.nl.

I have emailed the bv.nl registry to ask them to clarify.

Gerv

Comment 2

6 years ago
Looking at the list and the examples I do not understand why I chose to submit '*.bv.nl' You are right to assume that we need to have plain 'bv.nl'

Thank you for spotting this.
(Assignee)

Comment 3

6 years ago
Created attachment 507210 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v.1

As agreed.

Gerv
Assignee: nobody → gerv
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #507210 - Flags: approval2.0?
Comment on attachment 507210 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v.1

a=beltzner
Attachment #507210 - Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4aa1a8bc87fd

(I used the wrong bug number, though; I'll comment there.)
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Attachment #507210 - Flags: approval1.9.2.16?
Attachment #507210 - Flags: approval1.9.1.18?
Comment on attachment 507210 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v.1

Approved for 1.9.2.16 and 1.9.1.18, a=dveditz
Attachment #507210 - Flags: approval1.9.2.16?
Attachment #507210 - Flags: approval1.9.2.16+
Attachment #507210 - Flags: approval1.9.1.18?
Attachment #507210 - Flags: approval1.9.1.18+
(Assignee)

Comment 7

6 years ago
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/cc7396dea7a7
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/07993cfab688

Gerv
status1.9.1: --- → .18-fixed
status1.9.2: --- → .16-fixed
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.