>> Not really, because what you get by squatting on a TLD is nothing like >> what you get if you rent it from ICANN. Squats are all local >> (mis-)use, with names only leaking onto the public Internet by >> accident.
>That actually depends on what you're doing with the name. In the case >of the names discussed in the chapin draft, that is true. It's less >true in all cases. I think that all we're talking about here is reserving domain names and saying that they should never resolve on the global Internet. If the IETF finds good technical reasons to reserve some other name for some other reason, e.g., peer to peer exchange of crypto credentials or something, so what? It's one less name for ICANN to sell but I don't see why that would be our problem. I suppose the situation with .onion is slightly different, but in concept it's not all that different from .arpa. It's a domain that people are using for special technical purposes, so it's not available for normal delegation. The only ICANN delegated name that's the least bit interesting is .TEL, an attempt to create an online directory using NAPTR that is a failure, so they're unlikely to do any more. R's, John PS: Because I am not a good person, you can reply to me at [email protected]. Or, of course, [email protected]. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
