RFC 3675: .sex Considered Dangerous
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical points of view.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3675
- Published
- February 2004
- Authors
- D. Eastlake 3rd
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- INDEPENDENT
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 22
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3071Reflections on the DNS, RFC 1591, and Categories of DomainsCurrent
February 2001
- RFC 4697Observed DNS Resolution MisbehaviorUpdated
October 2006
- RFC 1591Domain Name System Structure and DelegationCurrent
March 1994
- RFC 6382Unique Origin Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) per Node for Globally Anycasted ServicesCurrent
October 2011
- RFC 8375Special-Use Domain 'home.arpa.'Current
May 2018
- RFC 9091Experimental Domain-Based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) Extension for Public Suffix DomainsObsoleted
July 2021
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?