Hi Warren -
I hadn't realized this is what you were referring to in your earlier
note. I don't believe that changes the analysis.
You're correct that the NTIA/Neustar documents mention RFC1480. But I
would expect that there are a number of contractual documents and
purchase agreements that reference other historic/obsolete RFCs. Saying
that we can't/shouldn't move a document to Historic because some non-I*
entity has incorporated the RFC by reference into a contract seems like
a stretch.
In considering the Historic tag, I would consider only: 1) Does any of
the I* believe it has change control for RFC1480? 2) Does the document
reflect current policies?
With respect to (1), I would say that none of the IETF/IAB/IESG/IRTF/ISE
have change control of this document because it represents external
policy. You might argue that IANA has change control, but, with the
delegation of .US to the NTIA (and every DNS non-delegated top level
zone to ICANN), the policy ownership transferred as well.
With respect to (2), I believe a reading of the NTIA/Neustar documents
would quickly indicate that while some of the text in 1480 still
applies, .US has moved on. (In fact see your quote below about
prohibiting new Delegated Managers).
Making this Historic says: "We the I* expect no further changes by this
community to this document - there will be no successors." Making this
document HIstoric does not - counter to Warren's statement below - have
any impact on current policy and contractual language for Neustar/NTIA
as the text of 1480 will continue to be available for reference.
Contrariwise, if the I* decided to muck with this document and produce
new and differing .US guidance, I would expect it to be quickly
repudiated by NTIA and Neustar.
Ideally, NTIA/Neustar will - at some point - take the hint and copy over
to the next contract modification whatever portions of 1480 are still
useful and applicable. Alternately, they could publish an ISE series
"Here's what's happening with the .US" RFC - but I don't know why they
would.
Later, Mike
PS - RFC 2860 doesn't seem applicable to this discussion - unclear what
you referenced it. Section 4.3 only specifically mentions delegations
for "technical use" as being covered in the MOU. .US is not a
delegation for technical use.
On 12/22/2025 18:44, Warren Kumari wrote:
+lots.
The reason that I initially asked if this would be co-ordinated with
Registry Services is that the "usTLD Delegated Manager Agreement"
explicitly calls out compliance with RFC 1480:
"5. COMPLIANCE WITH RFC 1480, AND ANY SUCCESSOR. As a Delegated
Manager, you hereby agree to provide Delegated Manager services
consistent with the requirements set forth in this Agreement. In
addition, you are responsible for knowing and agree to abide by the
requirements for naming structure, registration, and database
information specified in the third party document known as RFC 1480
(currently located athttp://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1480.txt?number=1480
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1480.txt?number=1480>), as supplemented by
the rules and procedures on the official .us web site at
http://about.us , which may be amended from time to time. In addition,
a Delegated Manager that intends to re-delegate a locality name must
adhere to the rules located at
https://www.about.us/cdn/creative_services/resources/domain-names/us-locality-compliance-report.pdf
as may be amended from time to time. In the event that any provision
in this Agreement conflicts with any of those contained within RFC
1480, the provisions of this Agreement shall control."
I really don't understand what problem we are trying to solve, nor why
we think that fiddling with this, way after Organization"
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2691/>, RFC2860 - "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority" <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2860/> is a
good idea.
Making RFC 1480 historic has policy and contract implications for
Registry Services, and ICANN,....
In addition, RS mentions RFC 1480 in multiple places, eg:
"Moratorium on New Delegations
Registry Services continues to operate the locatlity namespace under
RFC 1480 guidelines. In accordance with its current Statement of Work
and contract, Registry Services will not authorize any new Delegated
Managers in the usTLD locality-based space. While the existing
Delegated Managers perform a valuable function that has historical
significance, there is little benefit to be gained by adding new
Delegated Managers. Registry Services has extensive experience as the
default Delegated Manager for several thousand delegations and
continues to fulfill that role."
usTLD Locality Domain - Name Registration Terms & Conditions
"Those policies in RFC 1480 applicable to .us domain name registrants,
currently located at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1480 as
supplemented by the rules and procedures on the official .US web site
at http://www.about.us, which may be amended from time to time; and [...]"
W
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 6:17 PM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025, StJohns, Michael wrote:
To respond directly to John - what would cause confusion is if
someone thought 1480 was live and, where 1480 differed from
current policy, tried to argue for the old interpretation.
Let’s not.
We've had 25 years and I am not aware of that happening ever.
But in this very discussion, we've seen people who imagine that
locality domains are or perhaps should go away, something that
reclassifying 1480 would only encourage.
Is it really that hard to do nothing? Surely we have better things
to do.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
