Ok, thanks. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> On Oct 12, 2020, at 6:38 AM, Roy Arends <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> On 12 Oct 2020, at 08:44, Fred Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 8, 2020, at 7:08 AM, Daniel Migault via RSSAC <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> Just to let you know that the draft for the private tld has been adopted as >>> WG document. >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-00.txt__;!!PtGJab4!qHw-_WPRJG1YyMoR9K-baj4pViqk2fJQzJDsZbPg0smvVfNrGkUePaUGZNI96GahZI69WNY$ >>> >>> >>> Yours, >>> Daniel >> >> Thanks, Daniel. >> >> Joe and Roy, I'm trying to figure out how you intend these names to be >> managed and used. In your draft, you opine that having some form of private >> tld may be useful, and it may be. > > Thank you for taking the time to read the document. > >> You apparently don't intend them to be announced in the root zone > > That is correct. > >> (or any other zone) > > We make no assumptions on other zones. > >> , and note that there is nothing that precludes them being formally defined >> and published from the root in the future, invalidating all extant uses of >> any such name without warning or review. > > This initial version of the draft details that it is highly unlikely that > these two letter strings will ever be delegated, as it would violate > principles that were set out in the past. You are quite right that nothing > (in this draft) precludes them being formally defined. >> >> That seems a little precarious. > > One possible avenue that we’re researching is to treat these two letter > strings as code points that at one point were set by the ISO as > user-assigned, and should therefor be reserved (in the tradition of reserving > previously assigned code points so that they can not be re-assigned to mean > other things) and designate them as “special use” (RFC6761, RFC8244). > >> How do you plan to manage them? > > It seems to me that using the Special-Use Domain Names is a potential avenue > to make sure that these are indeed never delegated from the root zone. > Naturally this should all be done in coordination with the various ICANN > communities and liaisons. > > I hope this addresses your question. > > We will detail our progress at the IETF109 DNSOP WG and hopefully publish > version -01 of this document. > > Warm regards, > > Roy > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
