RFC 1480 describes a namespace that is still running. Every .US locality registration, the city-and-state structure under .US, exists because an operator built and maintains it according to that document. GoDaddy Registry is that operator today.
We don't object to RFC 1480 becoming Historic. The document is 30 years old and reads like it. But the namespace it specifies is not 30 years old in the way that matters: it is live, it resolves queries, and registrants depend on it. The normal sequence is to write the replacement first and let it obsolete the predecessor. Reversing that order means the only document describing an active namespace carries a label that says it's obsolete, while the namespace itself keeps running. That's a mismatch we'd rather avoid. We are willing to contribute to a successor document that captures how the .US locality space actually works now. We'd rather do that work before the status change, not after. Thanks, Jody Kolker ________________________________ From: John Levine <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 7:35 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Re: DNSOPConclusion and Proposal for Next Steps (RE: Moving RFC1480 (The US Domain) to Historic) It appears that Paul Hoffman <paul. hoffman@ icann. org> said: >On Jan 24, 2026, at 11: 28, John Levine <johnl@ taugh. com> wrote: >> To hark back to the beginning of this discussion, nothing about the management >> of the ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd It appears that Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> said: >On Jan 24, 2026, at 11:28, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> To hark back to the beginning of this discussion, nothing about the >> management >> of the .US domain has changed in the past 20 years, and there is no evidence >> that anyone is confused by this RFC. How about we just mark the erratum >> that started it as correct or HFDU and work on something useful instead? > >Our AD has precluded that option by wanting a specific draft. Some brave souls >here have volunteered to help. > >How about we just let that happen and see what comes of it? I think this sets a poor precedent, and I would prefer that the AD reconsider and agree that the correct thing to do is nothing, If we write an I-D we will waste yet more time arguing about whether the I-D correctly describes the complete lack of effect of whatever change it proposes. R's, John PS: I will stop now. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
