[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Call for Adoption: draft-davies-internal-tld

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 22, 2025, at 09:23, Suzanne Woolf <swoolf=[e-mail]> wrote:

> I’ll also note that we can sidestep the issues around the SUDN entirely:
> 
>> On Apr 16, 2025, at 5:19 AM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> "The IAB/IETF did not voice any objection to the ICANN Board permanently reserving a top-level string according to the ICANN Board minutes for the meeting dated 24 July 2024.  The expectation of the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair was that the string be reserved within the IANA-managed reserved domain registry rather than the special-use domain names registry.  There is an editor note in Section 4 of draft-davies-internal-tld-03 which states that: "It not yet decided if the "internal" top-level domain should be added to the list of special-use domain names".  The positions taken are somewhat contradictory.
> 
> The Liaison correspondence between IETF and ICANN regarding the .internal issue, including a link to the original letter from the ICANN CEO, is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1706/.  Taking the IAB/IETF advice there allows for clear meaning to the reservation of the string, in both the IETF and ICANN contexts. In the IANA “reserved” registry, it's clearly under the control of IANA and separate to the SUDN registry. 
> 
> (The reserved domains registry is not in the usual place because it’s not an IETF registry; as the liaison statement notes, it’s an IANA registry and can be found at https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved. The IETF wouldn’t be directing the reservation of .internal in an IETF registry but providing information that IANA had reserved it, in an Informational RFC.)

That only partially "sidesteps the issues around the SUDN". It would allow an entry to be made, but not say what the values in that entry would be. The draft has already sparked debate about what each part of the text should say. The current wording, particularly for #4 ("Caching DNS servers..."), is much better than it was when this started.

--Paul Hoffman