IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 29 April 2021 00:53 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 645A53A275F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
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 PK1jcE7IszXv for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa2.lax.icann.org (ppa2.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.77]) (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 10B933A275B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.6]) by ppa2.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 13T0rIcW026265 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:53:18 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.5; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:53:17 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.010; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:53:17 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] Questions on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHXPJIKgWxgAEIEIEiT4G7zrvy7Tg==
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:53:17 +0000
Message-ID: <6F3AABDC-61DA-4D58-A649-DEC614F1CE2C@icann.org>
References: <161805873252.19178.11471347094062424385@ietfa.amsl.com> <88395F35-AF22-489C-B9D6-2FFE4EB1A767@depht.com> <5F3F8198-23EA-4BA9-A07E-EF7AB035CE72@icann.org> <CAF4+nEFxggFvT-x7L-iqYxT0MTA5ODrR8BLx35VvQdzsmHt89A@mail.gmail.com> <A051DC33-EDF1-459F-B964-11BD05E4C3CB@dnss.ec> <284547BD-6A60-4B9F-9E71-5F79B2174B4B@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <284547BD-6A60-4B9F-9E71-5F79B2174B4B@rfc1035.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FE8EE850-5DEE-4718-90CF-654DF3E002A4"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-28_17:2021-04-28, 2021-04-28 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/O3FwqwWk4Of0V6TGJNm-UBQZw8w>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Questions on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01.txt
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: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:53:24 -0000

On Apr 28, 2021, at 5:38 AM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 28 Apr 2021, at 13:24, Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> I agree with this approach.
> 
> IMO it’s reasonable for the WG to produce an RFC which says “If you need a TLD for private use, pick from the two letter codes that ISO 3166 MA says they’ll never allocate. Bear in mind if they later change their mind, you’ll be on your own and could well be in a world of pain. Have a nice day.”.

s/world of pain/world of pain until you choose a new name that remains unused/.

We have no hard evidence that squatting on an unused TLD that is later put in the root zone causes more than annoyance. (This is where our illustrious AD chimes in with some examples from the round of 2012, and I again, exasperatedly, tell him that while those are true cases, they appear to be merely annoyances and ask him for evidence otherwise, and he retorts that it is I who needs to prove my point, not him, and we all sigh and wait another few years before we repeat this.)

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email