On 26. 05. 20 18:00, Roy Arends wrote:
> 
>> On 26 May 2020, at 16:06, Petr Špaček <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 02. 05. 20 16:09, Roy Arends wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ed and I just submitted a new version of our private-use TLD draft. 
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-arends-private-use-tld-01.txt
>>>
>>> This draft has substantial more information than the first draft. It 
>>> explains that a private-use namespace does not exist, why it is needed, and 
>>> how a namespace aligned with the user-assigned alpha-2 code elements in the 
>>> ISO-3166-1 standard can be used as private-use namespace.
>>
>> I think this is clever hack and should be documented, thank you!
> 
> Any time, thanks!
> 
>> Personally I'm bit torn because I've spent my whole professional career 
>> explaining people how bad idea it is to use non-delegated/non-unique names 
>> so I would really like to people from overusing this...
>>
>> Would you be willing to add at least one paragraph with caution? Something 
>> along lines "private TLD should be used as _option of last resort_", or more 
>> verbose "these special TLDs should be used only when other options, e.g. 
>> private subtree under a properly delegated name, were considered and 
>> refused."
> 
> I’m not sure about ranking different methods of deployment as each has its 
> own little idiosyncrasies that may be useful to the deployment scenario.
> 
> How about I add a section that details the additional complexities and adds 
> caution in using this specific method, such as “Using a private use top level 
> domain is not ‘more secure’ or ‘more private’ than using a public domain; it 
> requires additional complexity in resolving and signing, etc, etc”
> 
> Does that work for you?

Yes, that would be ideal, I just did not want to delve into details so much.

Basically the message I wanted to convey is "usually it is less work and more 
robust to use a delegated name instead of your own TLD". If you want to add 
longer explanation I'm happy to review it!

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to