IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] on private use TLDS

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 26 November 2019 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19F61209C3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:15:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z4ZHVaft2vK6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:15:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 530EA120999 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:15:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PFE112-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with ESMTPS id xAQIFBRT024742 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:15:12 GMT
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:15:10 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.000; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:15:10 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] on private use TLDS
Thread-Index: AQHVpICI0Gyg6lJdFEG1YZKMawjdOqeeR/qA
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:15:09 +0000
Message-ID: <1A3EA977-17BD-4C50-8A1B-E52BFA2AC671@icann.org>
References: <B679F326-54A0-4010-BD41-F2F317417169@dnss.ec> <CAAiTEH8U=N_wkgGitxZWySBJT2TWnWHdeqA4hUs0YFgDZHv8Tw@mail.gmail.com> <4A315612-5E68-432C-9FBF-28DAC7F877C0@icann.org> <CAAiTEH_tVxD4e17AsZFZ_G9JTr33OCa1h-RDjbmtuASt3i3Mxw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAiTEH_tVxD4e17AsZFZ_G9JTr33OCa1h-RDjbmtuASt3i3Mxw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6A75A0A2-7EF2-4F6C-AA09-63E58D183971"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-26_05:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-G-WP9GAJvdIcgokTvAkrXKhF_8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] on private use TLDS
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:15:15 -0000

On Nov 26, 2019, at 9:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com> wrote:
> >For those who read the draft, ypu'll see that "trying to take back part of it" is not there. The same was made clear in the presentation to the WG. "If you want a private name, here's one to consider; ones like it are already being used as private names in dozens of other contexts" is far from "taking" anything.
> 
> It's still the IETF stating that it's safe to use for that purpose, which is no longer the purview of the IETF having delegated that responsibility to ISO3166.  That is taking back authority over that name.  

The term "safe" doesn't appear in draft-arends-private-use-tld. If you have words you would prefer there to make it clearer that what is being proposed is just "If you want a private name, here's one to consider; ones like it are already being used as private names in dozens of other contexts", I bet Roy would consider adding it.

Bigger picture: this WG often gets tied between "we want to be the place recommending best practices for private naming" and "we disagree what settings to put on these three knobs when we are talking about private naming". I would like to think that it is not impossible for this to be resolved, because there is no better set of experienced people to deal with the thorny issue of private naming.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email