Re: [DNSOP] Questions on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01.txt

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 8:24 AM Roy Arends <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Donald,
>
> On 28 Apr 2021, at 03:34, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I am not comfortable with grabbing all the permanently unassigned 2-letter
> country codes for DNS private use.
>
>
> Note: I was the primary author of RFC 2606 and have been involved in this
> sort of thing before. See
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-2606bis/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsind-local-names/
>
>
> At one early point I considered the addition of a number of additional
> TLDs for testing purposes to the draft that became RFC 2606 including, as I
> recall, one that was 63 octets long and a number 2-letter codes taken from
> the permanently unassigned 2-letter ISO country codes. John Postel rejected
> such efforts and in particular, if I recall correctly, indicated that as
> IANA (at the time when essentially all registries were Expert Review and
> John was the universal expert) he would reject any effort to assign any DNS
> use to any ISO 2-letter code, other than as a national country code, unless
> a liaison was received from ISO explicitly permitting such use regardless
> of public statements by ISO that ISO would not assign a use to such any or
> all such code in the future.
>
>
> Ack. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1720/ to solicit that
> effect.
>

My apologies for being unaware of that liaison.

If ISO says it's OK, then I have no objection to recommending that some of
these private use 2-letter codes be used for local DNS zones. But if they
are good for this use with reference to the DNS, then I don't see why it
might not turn out some day there is some different good use for them. So I
would pick half of them and just recommend those.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]

> That may have been an earlier era but I think John Postel's position
> should still have some weight.
>
>
> I agree.
>
> And I would note that more recently, the IESG has wanted a liaison to be
> crystal clear about permissions from other standards development
> organizations for anything that is at all questionable.
>
>
> I agree.
>
> Asking the ISO for a clarification in the form of a liaison statement is
> an important first step. It indicates that the IETF is aware of these
> specific UA code elements, and is willing to ask clarification on them, and
> respects the organisation responsible (the ISO) for these code elements.
> Following established diplomacy between the IETF and the ISO on this
> specific matter is IMHO preferable and more inclusive over either sitting
> in fear and do nothing, because “ISO or IANA may get upset if we (the IETF)
> do this", or worse, that an emboldened IETF DNSOP WG unilaterally decides
> that these elements are just like “code elements” and should be “retired”
> (put on a "do not delegate” list), which IMHO would create unnecessary
> frustration between various organisations.”
>
> The liaison ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1720/  ) send by the
> IAB to the ISO is IMHO a clear indication that a path of diplomacy is
> preferred over unilaterally retiring code elements.
>
> The working group can (after a potential clarification from the ISO about
> the future status of code elements) decide if a subset suffices and if so,
> the composition of the subset.
>
> Warmly,
>
> Roy
>
>