Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <status-change-int-tlds-to-historic-00.txt> (Moving TCP.INT and NSAP.INT infrastructure domains to historic)

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

For some reason I didn't see the original message, and searching datatracker.ietf.org for "status-change-int-tlds-to-historic" reveals no documents. So I am replying to what I have, but perhaps matters have been overtaken by events.

On Mar 30, 2022, at 10:19, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> At 08:04 AM 29-03-2022, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering Group
>> IETF (iesg) to consider the following document: - 'Moving TCP.INT and
>> NSAP.INT infrastructure domains to historic'
>>  <status-change-int-tlds-to-historic-00.txt>
> 
> [...]
> 
> It took me a few minutes to figure out whether "tcp.int" existed or not.  There may be a typo in the initial request.

Yes, it seems possible to me too that the domain the document is talking about is TPC.INT ("The Phone Company"). TPC.INT is still delegated from the INT zone, and it has functional nameservers.

> The policy for the subdomain is specified in RFC 1530.  Can the IETF override that policy?

I suspect the IESG can declare its published documents relating to that domain to be historic which will aid the administrators of the INT domain in making decisions about the remaining delegations. At least some of the names attached to the TPC.INT project are still eminently contactable and it seems entirely plausible to me that a friendly consensus could be reached amongst everybody concerned.

The purpose of the INT domain has been a bit ambiguous for various periods of its existence. There have been several ad-hoc projects attached to it over time, including well-known examples like IP6.INT and perhaps more obscure examples like IP4.INT and NSAP.INT. The general trend seems to have been to unify the policy around .INT for the purpose of serving international treaty organisations, its nominal purpose.

> The statement invoked by the IESG is for the reclassification of a RFC.  If I am not mistaken, it was not intended for the reclassifying subdomains.

It is not uncommon for there not to be an obvious single point of policy administration when the closer you get to the root of the namespace, especially when you stir in ideas and services conceived in a gentler, more informal era.

I don't think it's necessary for the IESG to claim or try to exert policy control over the INT or TCP.INT domains for a measure such as I imagine this document might be taking to be useful.


Joe