> On 10 Feb 2025, at 10:41, Michael De Roover <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 9, 2025 10:25:41 PM CET John Levine wrote: >> They're not thinking about it. They did it. See >> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-top-level-domain >> -string-for-private-use-24-01-2024 > >> The question here is what if anything the IETF should do about it, with a >> variety of options such as do nothing, add it to the RFC 6761 registry, >> and/or ask IANA to put a DNSSEC opt-out in the root zone. >> >> R's, >> John > > Hi John, thanks for the heads-up. I've read the linked article and noticed > that I have at least 3 years of catching up to do. So far it appears that the > decision to use the string "internal" specifically has reached reasonable > consensus, but I think I could use a confirmation on that.
https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-special-meeting-of-the-icann-board-29-07-2024-en#section2.a "Resolved (2024.07.29.06), the Board reserves .INTERNAL from delegation in the DNS root zone permanently to provide for its use in private-use applications. The Board recommends that efforts be undertaken to raise awareness of its reservation for this purpose through the organization's technical outreach." > What I also find noteworthy is that some of these comments requested for > .internal to be something shorter. Going with the logic behind .lan, .vpn, > and > .sat, I would gravitate towards .int. But let's not pretend that we can just > take "international" to suddenly become "our little internal networks" ;-) .int is in use: https://www.iana.org/domains/int Roy Arends _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
