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

[Jim Reid <[e-mail]>]

> On 17 Apr 2025, at 16:12, David Conrad <drc=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> The root server system is not the part of the DNS infrastructure we need to worry about. 
> 
> Heh. If this were only true, the decade-long effort to develop a governance structure for the RSS could be wound down and Jim, Geoff, and others might be slightly less grumpy.

Nah. The operative word here is "might" David. I'll still be grumpy no matter what happens with the RSS governance structure. :-) Apart perhaps from a Viking-style funeral. :-)

> This is overly simplistic. Given the evolution of the Internet and the use of the DNS, the DNS will need to be modified. Every modification to the DNS implies (or at least should) a cost/benefit analysis. In this particular case, what I see is being proposed is the addition of an entry to the SUDN, presumably with a pointer to a document that explains why .internal is special. From my perspective, the benefit is consistency and helping DNS implementers understand the protocol and the cost is a document somewhere authoritative that says “for internal use only.” Do you see other costs?

Well there is the cost of setting up and maintaining some sort of registry which fully documents these special TLDs.* And the layer-9+ bickering over what does and doesn't go into this registry, who gets to decide, defining the criteria for adding or removing entries, etc, etc. IMO this isn't an issue for the IETF. I realise that ship has sailed because of earlier mistakes over the likes of .onion, .gns and friends. This doesn't mean we should repeat those mistakes.

If ICANN or some other body wants to have some sort of registry for its "special" TLDs, they can go ahead and do that. There's nothing stopping them. They don't need IETF approval. IMO there's nothing for the IETF to do here - apart from keeping well away from those toxic swamps.

* I suppose developers and DNS admins will have costs writing/maintaining/configuring code to support these special TLDs. A perceived(?) IETF-approved registry for them will just encourage more of this unpleasantness.