On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything for any 
particular purpose. It makes some observations about the administration
of ISO 3166 and its use in the ICANN context, and suggests to operators and 
implementers that the ISO3166 user-assigned 2-letter strings could be
suitable for local use in domain names. It does not include any IANA actions to 
update any registry or protocol element. So claims that this draft
reserves names or attempts to override ICANN policy about “TLDs” seem premature.

In a way, this is even worse. It is "marking" some TLD strings in a
special way, without any official IANA registry or ICANN policy anywhere.

We have already seen discussion on how this could lead to increased root
zone traffic, privacy leaks to public DNS, and the possible requirement
of adding things to AS112.

3. When several proposals came to the IETF more or less at once regarding 
“special use domain names”, which proponents were insisting had to be
single-label names (“TLDs”), the DNSOP chairs — in consultation with the IAB 
and IESG — set those proposals aside in hopes of finding a less
time-consuming, more scalable, and less dramatic way of considering changes to 
the special use names registry than having an open-ended IETF Last
Call, since there’s almost no technical guidance in RFC 6761 to determine 
whether a specific request is useful or even valid. 

This has come up before, and I do feel I need to again correct
this. All but one proposal was set aside. The .onion was given a strange
exception. This came after the WG told the draft authors to split the
single draft into multiple versions for the different TLDs requested,
and so .onion appeared in a separate draft _after_ that instruction.

It seems a bit of rewriting history to now claim "several proposals came
to the IETF more or less at once".

The chairs are reluctant to spend WG time in this area

I concur. The DNSOP WG is not the proper place to discuss this, based
on the previous handling of Special Use Domains brought to the WG.
Furthermore, those discussions caused the WG quite some delay in handling
actual DNS protocol and operational issues.

Paul

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

Reply via email to