add(considered): the _for-sale DNS node name is about the domain, not the site - #151
Closed
jdevalk wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
add(considered): the _for-sale DNS node name is about the domain, not the site#151jdevalk wants to merge 1 commit into
jdevalk wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
… the site RFC 10023 (Informational, July 2026) reserves _for-sale so a TXT record can advertise that a domain is for purchase. Externally checkable, so it clears the bar an HTTP method would not — but it describes a transaction beside the website rather than a property of it, and the RFC states no deployments. Recorded as too-narrow rather than too-early: adoption is the easier of the two objections to reverse.
Deploying specification-website with
|
| Latest commit: |
0e1cf05
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://1190240e.specification-website.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://add-considered-for-sale-dns.specification-website.pages.dev |
jdevalk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2026
Overrules the /considered/ turn-down proposed in #151. RFC 10023 (Informational, July 2026, SIDN Labs) reserves the "_for-sale" leaf node name and IANA has registered it in the Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names registry. Status `optional`: it applies only when the domain is actually for sale, which is the definition of context-dependent. The misconception the page is written against is that this is domain parking. It is nearly the opposite — the record sits beside a live site, is invisible to browsers, and answers the question WHOIS and RDAP cannot, since a name being registered has never implied it is unavailable. Wires for-sale-dns into relatedSlugs on dnssec, caa-records and dns-aid. Adds the changelog entry, the per-page OG image and the four count-driven ones, and re-signs SKILL.md (167 -> 168 pages). Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Owner
Author
|
Superseded by #165. Joost overruled the turn-down: |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changed
Adds
src/content/considered/for-sale-dns-node-name.md— one entry on/considered/, no spec page, nothing else touched.Why now
RFC 10023 — The "_for-sale" Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Name, Informational, July 2026, from SIDN Labs (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10023.html). It reserves
_for-saleso a TXT record at_for-sale.example.comcan advertise that the parent domain is available for purchase, usingftxt=/furi=/fval=/fcod=tag-value pairs. No protocol change required, and it works on a domain still in active use.Why it is not a page
Two reasons, recorded in that order because they are not equally strong.
Filed as
too-narrowrather thantoo-early, because adoption is the easier of the two to reverse — a registrar ecosystem could publish this next quarter and it still would not be something a good website does.revisitsays both would have to give.Maintainer call
This is the one I would most expect you to overrule. If you read
_for-saleas belonging next to the other DNS records we cover, the counter-argument is decent: it is a well-known-style convention, it is registered, and "the domain you are looking at is available" is genuinely useful information to the person looking. Say so and I will write the page instead.🤖 Generated with Claude Code