RFC 10023 introduces _for-sale DNS standard for domain sales signaling
New IETF specification allows domain owners to advertise sales availability via DNS records without replacing active sites.
Conversation activity · last 2 days peak 4/hr
Summary, timeline and people extracted by Claude from 10 items across 1 source · 21h ago. Quotes are verbatim.
RFC 10023, published in July 2026, establishes a reserved DNS leaf node called _for-sale that domain owners can use to signal their domains are available for purchase while keeping the sites fully operational. The convention uses TXT records to communicate sales information to brokers and automated availability services without affecting browser visitors or email delivery, addressing a long-standing gap in domain discoverability for potential buyers.
- RFC 10023 enables domain owners to advertise sales via DNS TXT records at _for-sale without disrupting active sites or email service
- The convention targets brokers and automated availability services rather than end users, addressing the gap between domain registrars and motivated buyers
- Implementation uses simple TXT record syntax with mandatory version tag (v=FORSALE1) and optional tags for price, contact URI, or free-form text
How it unfolded
-
Reaction Trademark arbitration experience shared
Commenter describes successful defense of a domain through WIPO arbitration decades ago, noting trademark owners routinely challenge domain ownership to protect their marks.
-
Analysis Semantics of absence debated
Commenter notes that absence of a _for-sale record does not necessarily mean a domain is not for sale, similar to how a house without a 'for sale' sign may still be purchasable.
-
Reaction Trademark concern raised
Commenter questions whether publicly advertising a domain for sale could disadvantage an owner in trademark arbitration disputes.
-
Reaction Community links RFC document
Hacker News commenter links directly to the official RFC 10023 document from the RFC Editor.
-
Report Specification published on Hacker News
A comprehensive technical article explaining RFC 10023's _for-sale DNS standard is posted to Hacker News, gaining 425 points and 159 comments.
- 6 weeks quiet
-
Event RFC 10023 published
IETF publishes RFC 10023 (Informational) establishing the _for-sale DNS convention as a reserved leaf node name registered with IANA.
What people are saying verbatim
“The wrong belief to clear first is that this is a way of parking a domain. It is close to the opposite.”
Article author · Specification.website article posted to Hacker News · Aug 7
“Putting the signal in DNS rather than on the page is what makes it useful to the parties who can act on it.”
Article author · Specification.website article posted to Hacker News · Aug 7
“Since most domains that are for sale don't currently have such a record, it would be wrong to assume they are not for sale. Therefore, absence of such a record does not explicitly mean "not for sale."”
kmoser, Hacker News commenter · Hacker News · Aug 7
“They need Georgism for DNS names. You set your own price for your domain. But you have to pay 2-5% of that price annually to keep it.”
asdfman123, Hacker News commenter · Hacker News · Aug 7
“I kept my domain name through WIPO domain arbitration. This was over 2 decades ago. Having a trademark owner challenge your right to own a domain name is just how things work.”
sbfeibish, Hacker News commenter · Hacker News · Aug 8
Voices from the web unedited
-
Something I've wondered... if you publicly say that a domain is for sale and someone has a trademark for it would you automatically lose in arbitration?Around 1998 I registered a domain. Sony registered a trademark with the same name a few years after that. Someone on a Gmail account asked if he could buy it - I later found out he worked for Sony…
-
> Remove it when the domain is no longer for sale. The convention has no “not for sale” value; absence is the only way to say no.Since most domains that are for sale don't currently have such a record, it would be wrong to assume they are not for sale. Therefore, absence of such a record does not explicitly mean "not for sale." It's no different…
-
Hi, author of RFC 10023 here.I appreciate the interesting discussion!If you’d like to get a better understanding of the concept, have a look here: https://rfc10023.nlThe biggest use case today, at SIDN (the registry for the .nl ccTLD), is described here:
-
This would have been great for a 2-letter .st domain I had been wanting for years (which appeared to be parked and just redirecting towards ticketmaster or something, with no contact info available). I was bummed about it for a long time, as the .st nic had a sale on 2-letter domains which made me want to pull the trigger, but it got scooped up a…
-
I kept my domain name through WIPO domain arbitration. This was over 2 decades ago. Having a trademark owner challenge your right to own a domain name is just how things work. A trademark owner has to defend the trademark, otherwise the trademark can be lost.
-
They need Georgism for DNS names. You set your own price for your domain. But you have to pay 2-5% of that price annually to keep it.That way, squatters are incentived to sell it to someone who's going to use it.
-
It’s interesting that domains apparently are still such a big business, despite how browsers have been deemphasizing URLs and domain names, and given the prevalence of apps.
-
Yeah cause we really had to improve domain squatters lives.In my opinion domain squatting should be banned instead.