On 18 Apr 2025, at 11:47, Karl Dyson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I think the question is why this particular domain is special. It is special in terms of namespace management, which is ICANN's domain. There will never be a new gTLD assigned that is called INTERNAL. I don't think it is special as far as the DNS is concerned, though. I don't think it is different from INTERNAL.STRANDKIP.NL, for example, if we imagine that is a domain that is invisible to most of the internet that is not connected within my apartment in Amsterdam. I don't need the DNS protocol to work differently from normal for INTERNAL.STRANDKIP.NL to work as I want it to work. If I had decided to name things under the INTERNAL top-level domain I also would not need special handling by the DNS protocol. People are of course free to configure their software to treat names under INTERNAL differently. But they don't need to. Everything will continue to work as expected regardless of whether they do or not. So I don't think INTERNAL is special, I don't think it needs to be added to the special use domains registry, I don't think this document needs to exist and so I don't think the working group should adopt it. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
