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

[Andrew McConachie <[e-mail]>]

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

> "Andrew McConachie" <[e-mail]> 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 
in
        [draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal].

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 
127.0.53.53.
        In this document, we refer to this as ".zz" following convention
        in [draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld].  We note that 
[draft-ietf-
        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
> USC/ISI