Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

David Conrad <> Wed, 04 December 2019 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4807C120137 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 08:45:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.397
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_BTC_ID=0.499, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Isyf0d4M3ejL for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 08:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04733120073 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 08:45:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t3so141414pgl.5 for <>; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 08:45:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=KvQlhLevI0Atkxq1lcC+hhzg143hvWNoSPVEJQXeFQE=; b=OJdMsZufTlxGbDdpR5wxrOojl/e2SVgO7gDbV1X9Zws6InbtQEguksTYer+hJ5Zbe5 eXOvcRUwX2c1bC98zYAUaYWTps/+8S7K2uH35GSw1lLWEK5hIEUJxyUfxCDTo2NxmSoB jd/bnTRlvcx0EtIO/PhyJzVsGScL/tKQbqXyY2hjzEcq2RheWDSbNUodCbxZ7mxvs5Oc Jk+mm2983y7G/roKjuMpA5sHbnHb4SDduZ7ypItAprNIRchyzjfXOazBdLYqTMuFlQNZ p4I116/ffk+Iy2vwLHfjD3BcHdRVs+bxYT9iX6la7dvaOWC26p7gaXHS0r2muQ5csLV7 w5AQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=KvQlhLevI0Atkxq1lcC+hhzg143hvWNoSPVEJQXeFQE=; b=TVWaIoAYp3ry/XLe4xs5C0IcyiNFRYK2YVC592U5BUWJSn/yqG0DlF8cWBIwJ6WbC3 cj1OdtDs8aGdnY47sYecWtBI1v58U4qwKWauDvf1VLOrh1WJLoTUTA5iY03IHM8Ij9wB x0Vqd7xVC2Sv0qacrCdypmjCEuXyqDfVLb6p8mmzcOlHcRTKfm5f8oH4xOi5gohubPV3 KLJ9h63067KoJftvfS13UuL3t4J8oo2ZFAKtAM9jfPlyarF1cccx2+Cg77lzBLjChy9W JKPeN4xR7+TfG8LPKUi8LY6oL2vQKMDMV/wbSs5qq+YjKragZiAF/YJeDsk9ceJuIcz0 CtEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWKjBqlc5PRPIhRNSe5+3rYUGZ3YJjkqHOQol9MHYT8KM0UuSKd fss/4CurBv9FGA/h8OelFQGrN0n8n2z31g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzwHmN5o1qVEGcqXAA85W8wkFluNxaOEDIw9/UeYjocqde49Cqsbss8Ch9sPRQxQpLJ8TRnow==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4e5e:: with SMTP id o30mr4744239pgl.112.1575477922418; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 08:45:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2606:6000:62c7:9900:2928:a98b:574a:b6? ([2606:6000:62c7:9900:2928:a98b:574a:b6]) by with ESMTPSA id b65sm8591098pgc.18.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Dec 2019 08:45:21 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D215058A-4A1F-4C93-A6D6-657410DF4EDF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: David Conrad <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 08:45:01 -0800
X-Mailbutler-Message-Id: C8A67522-A660-4C04-8F96-B6B359FD9B24
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Doug Barton <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 16:45:24 -0000

[Sorry for the slow response — US holidays and a resolution not to look at my computer over said holidays got in the way]


On Nov 27, 2019, at 8:39 PM, Doug Barton <>; wrote:
> I agree with Matt, Bill Woodcock, Steve Crocker, and others that have expressed that we should stay out of ISO's sandbox.

No one is suggesting we get into their sandbox.

> Whatever the rules are today, they can change, and poaching their stuff for our purposes is bad form (and yes, I feel that poaching is what is being proposed, in spite of the arguments to the contrary).

I’m confused. ISO 3166 says a set of codes are intended for user defined purposes. What is being proposed is using those codes for user defined purposes. How can this be construed as poaching?

> ICANN has already said that it's not going to ever delegate CORP, HOME, or MAIL.

No, ICANN has not said that.

(Speaking for myself, not any organization I may be affiliated with)