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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Well, i thought that .int was to be passed to some internet registry, which would
have made it probably more ICANN business as to what to do with it, but even then i am
not sure if we should not / could not seed it appropriately.

But one response i saw was that it would be kepy at IANA, which AFAIK would make the
seeding even more an (immutable without RFC) job of the IETF. Right ?

IMHO: Whether or not to allow reuse of such historic special domain names IMHO should certainly
a conscious choice on our side.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:56:41AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Toerless,
> 
> Most of your comments are not IETF business; the whole point of this long
> overdue action is to remove any remaining bit of IETF business from .int,
> so that we can forget about it and leave all the metaphysics to ICANN.
> 
> I fully support both this draft and the accompanying deprecation of
> RFC1706 and RFC1528. Time to move on.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 20-Oct-22 11:33, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

-- 
---
[e-mail]