Re: [DNSOP] draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options

Andrew McConachie <> Wed, 04 November 2020 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7733A0E0B for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 01:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ajNXRdq_sA73 for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 01:21:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::642]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 563853A0E05 for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 01:21:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j24so28694875ejc.11 for <>; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 01:21:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5XO7Uok0pqLm/AvwVIkuLGUtZVBVX1syDAvD536X6yY=; b=Qe32lupc5U7/5ehQPbHumu8yy4r9iUStC5zZzUB4aHeldYrPN5VJB1jckcC2mh5yMC I15iqjREThVYiN4HeA3K5jLs74MRxyEgc5Bz+RPjRY5uBhcDqNpgW/AK4dpSvHvGAPGF MljmXtAwjspaKep0GxzyZ5HTTnf0VC461kdDCdmiic+eGPFr8h1NcUpCGFApuASZu/lQ lmQob5JehLz+EWP4W/ID73E02vBTuGe7sE1UacFS6KZQF2aEEOo6PxEH5VAjjpM2MVLi CqN08+iToWssuiLvykGckkGz8emOljqC33RCL8peAEDPuDBCitLRyXC9i9yUQGYgG2DD bVwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5XO7Uok0pqLm/AvwVIkuLGUtZVBVX1syDAvD536X6yY=; b=N/6jYYPpycXWo9lzNqGVptHQBtP4232Gi+Ovq64ZaO0GPgcJjbgSnzSTqSvUh2XGBO 4p4O21zcbLl4BjjCShII/39qUlwK/lTSUzr/4LFusWAgGlFzQvuquKagDCAKpjXlkcbF zYJKytIP1zfFSwd90/uXIyLIduWNLKzQPhjpUihYG5jgt29hqac7uWLV3V5oFYMuIzdF MrzIPvxObzxs9C+hrL3v8bJ4+2+3x/5K2TNaJEpYG66gzAtEDaZIZOLfGMF1oSFRMsU/ eZCaER8C1WnWsZQdLfqX/IQVlvcjMcWl9e3nXXoLwKI5xSQ8Q0ee59rGWYE66ZXUzdMb GnSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pDgsH3JtdPGKdTx8/Bc3bSAJY+xv+DNrMfJfk4i8kIq5ykvko FVMzrmIn2ti2/xavKlhKWWADldaQvVB4ig==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2D5mazrEl/Is579Zg6acX57PP8RHJNEnJ1QigC6QLMUibt/KaVELVY+YJVGnnQq/yZlcH2g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:519b:: with SMTP id y27mr22913201ejk.25.1604481711569; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 01:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([2a02:a212:9285:29f0:acde:c85d:d66c:1bf7]) by with ESMTPSA id x2sm658501ejb.86.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2020 01:21:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Andrew McConachie <>
To: Wes Hardaker <>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 10:21:50 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_4EA2A288-A0E6-4733-997D-1F362014D4E2_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options
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 Nov 2020 09:21:55 -0000

On 4 Nov 2020, at 2:11, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> "Andrew McConachie" <> writes:
>> I’m having a hard time understanding the two proposed deployments 
>> in
>> this document.
> It's not as clean as I'd like, certainly.  I was pushing up against 
> the
> draft submission deadlines and didn't get all the wording into place.
>> In 2.2.1 it states that .internal does not exist in the GID. Yet in
>> the Summary section immediately after it states that .internal is an
>> unsigned TLD. Which is it?
> .internal is an unsigned TLD and is the GID.

1.  Is a special-use domain per [RFC6761], and does not (and will
        never) exist in the GID.  In this document, we refer to this as
        ".internal" for discussion purposes only following conventions 

I read the above text as telling me that .internal will never exist in 
the GID.

> I don't see where in 2.2.1 it says that though.
>> In 2.2.2 it states that .zz is an unsigned delegation in the GID’s 
>> DNS
>> root. Yet in the summary section it states that “.zz is a
>> special-use-like TLD that MUST never be assigned”. Which is it?
> The later.  .zz is not delegated.  Again I'm not sure which sentence
> you're referring to though.

  2.  Is an unsigned delegation within the (GID's) DNS root, with NS
        records likely pointing eventually to something like
        In this document, we refer to this as ".zz" following convention
        in [draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld].  We note that 
        dnsop-alt-tld] also proposed a private namespace (".alt") that
        also fits into this category.

This seems to be saying that .zz is an unsigned delegation. Am I missing 
something obvious here?
> [someone did note that one of my section names is incorrect as well 
> and
> referred to the wrong one]
>> My understanding of an unsigned TLD is that it is delegated in the
>> root zone unsigned. And I take it that GID is simply a synonym for
>> what many call The Public DNS.
> Yep.  It's "Global Internet's DNS (GID)", per the document.
> There are, unfortunately, more than one naming environments.  We've
> known this for years with even /etc/hosts being different from the 
> DNS,
> and NIS coming along later, etc.  Nowdays, there are so many
> split-systems with both internal and externally differing naming sets 
> I
> was trying to use something that included the world "global" to be
> super-clear this is the "big one".
> -- 
> Wes Hardaker