Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01.txt

[Andrew McConachie <[e-mail]>]

Dear Roy, Joe, and Eberhard,

If I understand section 4.3 correctly, DNSSEC validating stub resolvers 
SHOULD NOT resolve these names. Is that the intention of Section 4.3?

Why reserve so many names for a singular purpose? If human semantics are 
irrelevant then why not just pick a name at random and reserve that one? 
There may come a time in the future where one of these names might be 
useful for something else.

Section 4.4 has a typo. “attempt to look up NS records for the,” 
should be “attempt to look up NS records for them,”.

—Andrew

On 10 Apr 2021, at 14:45, [e-mail] wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of 
> the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Top-level Domains for Private Internets
>         Authors         : Roy Arends
>                           Joe Abley
>                           Eberhard W. Lisse
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 14
> 	Date            : 2021-04-10
>
> Abstract:
>    There are no defined private-use namespaces in the Domain Name 
> System
>    (DNS).  For a domain name to be considered private-use, it needs to
>    be future-proof in that its top-level domain will never be 
> delegated
>    from the root zone.  The lack of a private-use namespace has led to
>    locally configured namespaces with a top-level domain that is not
>    future proof.
>
>    The DNS needs an equivalent of the facilities provided by BCP 5 
> (RFC
>    1918) for private internets, i.e. a range of short, semantic-free
>    top-level domains that can be used in private internets without the
>    risk of being globally delegated from the root zone.
>
>    This document describes a particular set of code points which, by
>    virtue of the way they have been designated in the ISO 3166 
> standard,
>    are thought to be plausible choices for the implementation of 
> private
>    namespaces that are anchored in top-level domains.
>
>    The ISO 3166 standard is used for the definition of eligible
>    designations for country-code top-level Domains.  This standard is
>    maintained by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.  The ISO 3166 
> standard
>    includes a set of user-assigned code elements that can be used by
>    those who need to add further names to their local applications.
>
>    Because of the rules set out by ISO in their standard, it is
>    extremely unlikely that these user-assigned code elements would 
> ever
>    conflict with delegations in the root zone under current practices.
>
>    In order to avoid the operational and security consequences of
>    collisions between private and global use of these code elements as
>    top-level domains, this document specifies that such top-level
>    domains should never be deployed in the global namespace, and
>    reserves them accordingly in the Special-Use Names Registry
>    [RFC6761].
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop