On 11/26/19 9:16 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 05:19, Roy Arends <r...@dnss.ec
<mailto:r...@dnss.ec>> wrote:
“ZZ” was used in my presentation as an example. Since this
bikeshedding is siphoning attention from the important part of the
discussion, I’ll try to re-focus on the question here:
"Is it safe to use ISO3166-1 Alpha-2 code elements from the User
Assigned range as top level domains for my own private use?"
Thanks for the context, Roy. Speaking as someone who was not at the
IETF meeting this week, I found the earlier thread confusing. But, it
looks like the assumed context of bringing up "what can we use this for"
as "can we assign this string in an RFC?" was correct.
It seems like reassignment of anything in the User Assigned range is
unlikely, however that is the purview of the iSO 3166 maintenance
agency, and not the IETF. However unlikely it is, we cannot be
absolutely certain they will never reassign those, and so we should not
include them in any standard (note the lower-case) published by the
IETF. Even if the IETF is just cut & pasting their current advice, I
think it's unwise.
I'm also persuaded by Bill's argument that the IETF has already stated
that ISO 3166 has control over that bit of the namespace, and trying to
take back part of it is confusing, bad form, and risky.
Even though they're not specifically proposed, only mentioned in
passing, I'd also like to point out that the referenced potential uses
of things like XH instead of home.arpa. is even more risky, because that
fixes that string for a specific use, even if it's private. Using XH as
an example, if that had been chosen it would run the risk of colliding
with some legitimate use of XH already being used by a User... if that
user then also needed to interoperate with Homenet technologies they'd
be hosed.
I think, instead of an RFC, what you really want is a Best Current
Practices document, outside of the IETF, that is simply a redirect to
the current ISO 3166 document. Instead of DNSOP, I'd suggest you have a
chat with one or more of the BCOP efforts at the NOGs.
I agree with Matt, Bill Woodcock, Steve Crocker, and others that have
expressed that we should stay out of ISO's sandbox. Whatever the rules
are today, they can change, and poaching their stuff for our purposes is
bad form (and yes, I feel that poaching is what is being proposed, in
spite of the arguments to the contrary).
ICANN has already said that it's not going to ever delegate CORP, HOME,
or MAIL.
(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-01aug14-en.pdf
Section 3.2) IMO it would be useful for the IETF, with ICANN's
cooperation, to codify that (if it hasn't been done already). I also
think INTERNAL as a private-use TLD is a good idea, and should be
included in the same doc. It's also useful to mention the distinction
between using something temporarily for testing, and building
infrastructure around it. If someone wants to put together a document
like that I would be happy to offer support, review, and/or
contributions if so desired.
So what's the harm? Aside from the PR issues related to poaching ISO
3166 stuff, I have personally been involved a few times in unwinding the
giant mess created when clients decided that they were going to use a
string as an internal TLD, and then subsequently it got delegated
publicly. This creates serious problems, is difficult to debug, and
expensive to fix. The advice we've given folks for decades is, "Don't
take it upon yourself to grab something that doesn't belong to you and
build your network on it." In my view, that's what is being recommended
here; and having seen the damage it causes first hand, I cannot support
the proposal.
Doug
--
Since I haven't been involved in the group for a while here is a
mini-resume for those that don't know me, offered with no small amount
of embarrassment:
DNS and domain name work for 25 years, 20+ of doing it for a living
Formerly a regular IETF participant
Former GM of the IANA
Former consultant in the DNS/DHCP/IPAM and domain name spaces
Currently managing the domain name portfolio for a Fortune 100 corporation
That said, all views are my own, and are worth exactly what you paid for
them. :)
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
