Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 2/4/14, 12:42 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:54:41PM +0000,
>  [e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote 
>  a message of 112 lines which said:
> 
>> maybe we should consider to discuss the principles under which TLDs
>> can be reserved for special use and consider a re-spin or an update
>> to RFC6761.
> 
> So, RFC 6761 was written just to allow Apple to register .local and,
> once it is done, we close the door to new registrations?

That in and of itself would be a bit of a moral hazard. it's plausible
that this one case is simply more clear cut (certainly in the minds of
the authors) then others.

I don't believe that we did this (6761) so that we could treat this as a
one-off event.

it's my personal opinion that application specific namespaces should be
treated differently in some way, if resolver libraries are being asked
to make a decision on the basis of .tld how to handle a query we gone
down an extensibility rathole that's hard to get out of.

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>