> On 5 Feb 2025, at 3:37 am, Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Geoff, > > On 5 Feb 2025, at 02:43, Geoff Huston <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> On 4 Feb 2025, at 4:49 pm, Kim Davies <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> We have published a new version of the draft intended to document the >>> .internal top-level domain. >>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-internal-tld/) >>> >>> When we presented this work in Dublin, there was a lot of discussion both >>> in the meeting, and subsequently, on whether this should be a work item and >>> also whether the domain merited consideration as a special-use domain name >>> per RFC 6761. I don’t think there was clear consensus on either, but to >>> further the discussion on the latter point, Warren Kumari has provided >>> strawman text to stimulate discussion. >> >> I have discussed this with Warren. Upon reflection I think that its a domain >> name with special use considerations that would largely fit into RFC6761 >> critera. The fact that this name "allocation" was the work of ICANN is less >> relevant in this context than the observation than a duly qualified body who >> can make such name allocations has indeed done so merits recording in the >> registry. > > By my reading, RFC 6761 and the registry it created are all about how a > domain name should be used, not its provenance. There's no special handling > required by clients, stub resolvers, recursive resolvers, forwarders or > authoritative servers for names in the INTERNAL domain,
You may assert as such Joe yet section 5.1 of the draft makes such a case using the criteria of RFC6761.. Accordingly, I fail to appreciate your assertion, unfortunately.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
