[DNSOP] Re: Call for Adoption: draft-davies-internal-tld

[Michael De Roover <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, April 29, 2025 9:30:13 PM CEST Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> At the moment, the only reason I can see to adopt this draft is to provide
> information about something ICANN/IANA did (reserve .internal from “normal”
> delegation to a registry operator to create and maintain SLDs under it). It
> makes sense to me that we do it in an RFC for the benefit of DNS operators
> and implementers, who should know about this decision by ICANN regarding
> the operation of the root zone, and which they might not stumble over
> otherwise. (I think David Conrad said this better about 100 messages
> ago….)

Looking at [1], I would imagine that adding this into an RFC would be the correct way to 
move forward, even if it does not entirely involve actions conducted by IETF. The proposed 
workflow appears to be introducing a new one so far, and there appear to be various 
existing ones that encompass several domains listed. This could live alongside those.

[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xml[1]

If I were to look at these RFCs and cross-organization overlap as a developer, I would likely 
be very confused. 10 years of practice and 5 years on this list, still incomplete 
understanding. I doubt that I'll ever understand this policymaking subject in full, certainly 
not without sacrificing everything else. So in the process of creating these policies, we 
have an obligation to cater to those who use it, lest we create what's ultimately just a piece 
of indecipherable text with a power vacuum in between.

Anyway, if I were to look for guidance on which domains are "special", the aforementioned 
IANA document would be what I'd consider authoritative (correct me if I'm wrong). 
Meanwhile if I were to look for guidance on technical matters (the engineering E in IETF if 
you will), I would go looking for an RFC. The point I'm trying to make here, is that both for 
procedural and lookup reasons, they should both exist. This RFC attempts to provide the 
IETF component of what seems to be highly intertwined organizations.

And honestly, for something as significant as a private-use delegation of top-level 
namespace, it's no surprise that just about everyone's involved. A meetup of people across 
every level, what's not to like? :)

> 2. Does the WG have some consensus technical advice to give regarding
> whether and how .internal should have a DNS delegation in the root zone? I
> don’t know, but that’s a separate matter; if SSAC wants to clarify their
> advice, or DNSOP wants to be on the record with specific concerns about
> implementation, that can be coordinated with the respective liaisons to the
> ICANN Board, and to ICANN and IANA staff. If that results in more detailed
> information that IANA wants to include in the RFC, so much the better.

This DNSSEC question is one that could (and likely should) be answered by the RFC, it is 
technical minutiae that's relevant to the root server operators for implementation. I 
cannot comment on this, I have zero experience with DNSSEC. But it is something that the 
RFC may want to answer, alongside the subtle nudges for SUDN inclusion by IANA. I do 
believe it should go into that document, the similarities to home.arpa. and RFC1918 
private-use IPs are too significant to overlook.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,
Michael De Roover

Mail: [e-mail]
Web: michael.de.roover.eu.org

--------
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xml