Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-davies-int-historic-04.txt> (Deprecating infrastructure "int" domains) to Informational RFC

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

a) Why does the draft say 

  "intergovernmental organizations, which are organizations established by
  international treaties between or among national governments
  
  when rfc1591 says:
  
  "organizations established by international treaties, (or international databases)"
  
  This seems to be an intentional different/refined wording. Why ?

  For example there are laws for treaties between international organiations,
  aka: another layer of indirection, which in my reading would be covered by
  rfc1591 but not the draft wording.

b) If we are going to want to refine the future use of .int (because
  we want to be crisp about the purpose before passing it on to some operating
  registry):

  Would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations be able to
  get a .int domain ? The way i read wikipedia, there is no treaty involved,
  but it is an association and formalized through a declaration
  and later a statue. Or does this rightfully not deserve a .int domain
  because it does not have the right (treaty) paperwork (and the DNS has the wrong
  order for the brits anyhow ;-) ?

  Aka: if we have the freedom to make .int more useful maybe rethink / broaden
  it permitted use with cases like this considered.

  IMHO: as broad as possible in the original spirit while still effectively prohibiting FCFS land grabs.

  Maybe something like international organizations established by national governments or their international organizations.

c) "The documented uses of infrastructural identifiers in the "int"
   domain were largely experimental and in practice obsolete."

  ... and are now in practice ...

d) I suggest to replace the security considerations of

   "The operator of the "int" domain should be cautious about any potential
    re-use of these domains for intergovernmental treaty organizations"

   with explicit text earlier, that these domain names must never be re-used
   and maybe even instructions how to populate them with some appropriate NULL RR
   (not sure what the best RR would be).

   Halloween horror story of the day: ITU gets ipv4.int and ipv6.int and uses it
   for a new international database how to filter Internet traffic. Just saying.
   Look up the EU presidents history of Internet filtering proposals...

   Note: It would  be nice if ITU gets tpc.int and populates it with
   the some official E164 database, but neither does ITU have this type of humor,
   nor does domain availability change the business model that makes DNS
   not desired for E164 space... unfortunately... i think).

Cheers
    Toerless


On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 05:34:40PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> The IESG <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>     > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>     > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2022-11-23. Exceptionally, comments
>     > may be sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>     > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
>     > Abstract
> 
> 
>     >    The document marks as historic any "int" domain names that were
>     > designated for infrastructure purposes, and identifies them for removal
>     > from the "int" top-level domain.  Any implementation that involves
>     > these domains should be considered deprecated.  This document also
>     > marks RFC 1528 and RFC 1706 as historic.
> 
> So, I understand that none of our infrastructure has been in .int for some
> years (decades even).
> 
> The document says:
>    In conjunction with this change, the eligibility for "int" domains was
>    limited to only intergovernmental treaty organizations.
> 
> I think that, after approval, that this use for int will remain, and the
> management of it will fall to, I guess, ICANN, as yet another TLD?
> 
> At first reading, it seemed like we were removing int entirely, but upon more
> careful reading, I see that we are just removing our infrastructure
> delegations.
> 

> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> 
> 
> 




> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call


-- 
---
[e-mail]