On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 12:00:19PM +0200, Joe Abley wrote: > 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
Hello, I read this a few times and it led to my other reply supporting adoption. I kept thinking about the parallels with RFC1918 address space and concluded, rightly or wrongly, that it should be considered by the WG. Thanks, Karl -- Karl Dyson _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
