Re: [dns-dir] Draft requesting reservation of special-use domain names

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:29 PM 11/27/13, Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On 20 nov. 2013, at 22:20, Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> That appendix seems to have a different purpose, which is to tell those that might use ".local" for their intranet that they need to change (to avoid conflict with mDNS) and then goes on to list some names which others have been using for their intranet without conflicts.
>> 
>> Of course, that list was a snapshot when the RFC was written - if some of those get delegated as TLDs in the future the recommendation wouldn't be a good one any more.
>> 
>> Thus from my reading of appendix G its status is quite clear. It doesn't say anything about future use of the suggested intranet labels.
> 
> 
> But people who are not IETF close readers might have interpreted this paragraph as being normative and an indication of ‘safe to use’.
> 
> In any case the question is whether we should clarify. If we do we can go two ways:
> 1 Using these labels: your own dumb fault, you should have know better 
> 2 These labels are reserved for private use, because we have been confusing, and because of wide public use suggested by various forms of documentation. The will be banned for delegation from the root: beware of collisions and undefined behavior.
> 
> I’d opt for writing such document and I’d opt for version 2.

Is there some reason to think those names might be delegated from the root?  My understanding is that the review process for name delegation would identify such names as "not to be delegated" if there is significant use now, otherwise, they are safe to delegate. 

- Ralph

> 
> —Olaf