On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 07:22:18PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > > Well there is the cost of setting up and maintaining some sort of registry > which fully documents these special TLDs.* And the layer-9+ bickering over > what does and doesn't go into this registry, who gets to decide, defining the > criteria for adding or removing entries, etc, etc. IMO this isn't an issue > for the IETF. I realise that ship has sailed because of earlier mistakes over > the likes of .onion, .gns and friends. This doesn't mean we should repeat > those mistakes. >
I agree we should not repeat mistakes, however, if a precedent already exists for handling of special case TLDs, we should be consistent in our approach, to avoid confusion among folks implementing, operating and troubleshooting this camel. > > If ICANN or some other body wants to have some sort of registry for its > "special" TLDs, they can go ahead and do that. There's nothing stopping them. > They don't need IETF approval. IMO there's nothing for the IETF to do here - > apart from keeping well away from those toxic swamps. > > * I suppose developers and DNS admins will have costs > writing/maintaining/configuring code to support these special TLDs. A > perceived(?) IETF-approved registry for them will just encourage more of this > unpleasantness. > ...does the registry not already exist, tho? I agree that we don't want unpleasantness, but again; if it already exists, we should be consistent at least. Not wanting or having unpleasantness is perhaps a ship that has sailed... Best wishes, Karl -- Karl Dyson _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
