On 8 Oct 2020, at 11:54, [email protected] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of
the IETF.
Title : Top-level Domains for Private Internets
Authors : Roy Arends
Joe Abley
Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-00.txt
Pages : 10
Date : 2020-10-08
Abstract:
There are no defined private-use namespaces in the Domain Name
System
(DNS). For a domain name to be considered private-use, it needs to
be future-proof in that its top-level domain will never be
delegated
from the root zone. The lack of a private-use namespace has led to
locally configured namespaces with a top-level domain that is not
future proof.
The DNS needs an equivalent of the facilities provided by BCP 5
(RFC
1918) for private internets, i.e. a range of short, semantic-free
top-level domains that can be used in private internets without the
risk of being globally delegated from the root zone.
The ISO 3166 standard is used for the definition of eligible
designations for country-code top-level Domains. This standard is
maintained by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. The ISO 3166
standard
includes a set of user-assigned code elements that can be used by
those who need to add further names to their local applications.
Because of the rules set out by ISO in their standard, it is
extremely unlikely that these user-assigned code elements would
ever
conflict with delegations in the root zone under current practices.
This document explicitly reserves these code elements to be safely
used as top-level domains for private DNS resolution.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld/
There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-00
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
Hi Roy and Joe,
It’s not clear to me whether the document is advising to only use this
facility when a sub-domain of a public domain name is unavailable, or to
optionally use this facility based on the user’s preference. What I
would like the document to say is that only when a sub-domain of a
public domain is unavailable should this facility be considered. The
reader should get the impression that they should try really really hard
to not use the ISO-3166 reserved string if they can.
This is marked as a BCP and so I would expect to see this advice
prominent in the document. Since, IMO at least, that is the best current
practice. Only when a user cannot use a sub-domain of a domain they
control should they even consider using the ISO-3166 reserved string.
Ideally there could be a new section discussing this advice between the
current sections 1 and 2. That way the reader will encounter the best
practice before encountering the work around.
Thanks,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
