IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Wed, 28 April 2021 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
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 2AC883A28E5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 05:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 Xf-UfJnu_yJl for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 05:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDAB03A28E3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 05:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B6EF2420C28; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:38:28 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <A051DC33-EDF1-459F-B964-11BD05E4C3CB@dnss.ec>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:38:26 +0100
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <284547BD-6A60-4B9F-9E71-5F79B2174B4B@rfc1035.com>
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>
To: Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/cWgk_vRqVFw4AALWV1LS8WKJvPA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] 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: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:38:37 -0000


> 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.”.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email