Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, 15 June 2020 22:46:17 UTC Tony Finch wrote:
> Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > there are perhaps more than three, and some might not be yet known by
> > those who will want them. the reason why some part of the DNS namespace
> > should be reserved in the form, "shall never be allocated by IANA", is
> > not because we cannot think of a good enough and present cause why such a
> > thing may be desirable.
> 
> Fair enough, but what you are suggesting seems to be quite different from
> what this draft is suggesting. You seem to be talking about reserving for
> future use, or for lab environments that never connects to any other part
> of the Internet, whereas this draft is just suggesting that everyone
> should use these ISO 3166 reserved codes as a 192.168 free-for-all instead
> of .lan or .home or whatever they are currently squatting on.

i expect the problem statement and proposed solution to be subject to the usual WG 
process. it's possible that the ISO 3166 reservations _should_ stand. or else, that a new 
IETF-reserved code should be created. i'm not using .local at the moment, but i remember 
collision studies around .corp and .home. i'm not sure i care how the IETF promises never 
to allow some tld to be delegated (other than as a wildcard pointing to AS112, or similar), 
but i'd like to see it.

> I.e. the proposed use case is already widely deployed and known to be a
> bad idea.

known by whom, and how? (got URL?) 

-- 
Paul