From 0e1cf05af56794e77c009a440c0a49c1e8eab9cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joost de Valk Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2026 08:13:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] add(considered): the _for-sale DNS node name is about the domain, not the site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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. --- .../considered/for-sale-dns-node-name.md | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) create mode 100644 src/content/considered/for-sale-dns-node-name.md diff --git a/src/content/considered/for-sale-dns-node-name.md b/src/content/considered/for-sale-dns-node-name.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f23ce5cb --- /dev/null +++ b/src/content/considered/for-sale-dns-node-name.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +--- +title: 'The "_for-sale" DNS node name (RFC 10023)' +date: "2026-08-02" +reason: too-narrow +revisit: "Registrars, parking providers or domain marketplaces publishing it by default, and buyer-side tooling reading it. At that point it becomes a discovery convention with an audience, and the page would sit alongside the other DNS-level signals." +sources: + - title: 'RFC 10023 — The "_for-sale" Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Name' + url: "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10023.html" + publisher: "IETF" + - title: "RFC 8552 — Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through Underscored Node Names" + url: "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8552" + publisher: "IETF" +--- + +RFC 10023, published as Informational in July 2026 by SIDN Labs, reserves the underscored node name `_for-sale` so a domain holder can advertise that the parent domain is available for purchase. A TXT record at `_for-sale.example.com` carries tag-value pairs — `ftxt=` for human-readable text, `furi=` for a contact URI, `fval=` for an asking price, `fcod=` for a proprietary code. It needs no protocol change and can sit on a domain that is still in active use. + +It is externally checkable, which is the test this spec normally applies to DNS-level conventions, and on that count it passes where an HTTP method or a CSS feature would not. What it does not pass is the question of who it is for. Every other signal we spec — CAA, DNSSEC, DNS-AID — tells a visitor, a resolver or an agent something about the site that is there. This one tells a prospective buyer something about the domain, which is a fact about a commercial transaction happening beside the website rather than a property of the website. A good website is not improved by being for sale. + +Adoption is the second problem and currently the simpler one: the RFC documents a proposed convention rather than an established practice, and states no deployments. Both objections would have to fall away together — a registrar ecosystem publishing it, and a reason to describe it as something a site does rather than something its owner does — before this is a page. The narrow-audience objection is the one that would need the better argument.