Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

[manning <[e-mail]>]

As long as we are taking this path,   will the Special Use Names folks please remove MX from the ISO 3166 list and
delete the TLD so as not to confuse email  …  MX is so overloaded.

manning

[e-mail]
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102



On 8May2015Friday, at 16:10, Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]> wrote:

> In the interests of maybe taking this argument a little further than we have the previous n times….
> 
>> On May 8, 2015, at 8:34 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>>> "home", "corp" and perhaps "mail" need special handling if we really
>>>> want to not cause problems for those using those tlds internally.
>>> 
>>> Why?
>>> 
>>> What objective criteria makes those TLDs special?
>> 
>> Data reportedly shows extensive off-the-books use in private networks.
>> It's an obvious stability issue.
> 
> I share David’s reservations about this— how do we objectively and reproducibly distinguish “people are using these in private networks” from “people are generating arbitrary traffic to the roots for these”?
> 
> Is there any concern for the IETF in a policy that says “If you start using an arbitrary name that isn’t currently in the root zone, you can just get the IETF to protect it for you”?
> 
> Furthermore, given that ICANN has already said they won’t delegate these names in particular, how is it helpful for the IETF to also add them to the Special Use Names registry?
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Suzanne
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop