Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS: .interNAL -> .LAN

On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 8:33 PM Paul Wouters wrote: > > LAN implies local area network. So an organization with multiple locations > would have a LAN at each location, but the .LAN would be their collection of > LANs? I think that would lead to confusion. > > Paul There are non-commercial

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS: .interNAL -> .LAN

According to Paul Wouters : > >> On Jan 27, 2024, at 16:42, Paul Marks wrote: >> >>  pick .lan >> instead? It seems that a lot of people are already using this abbreviation >> on their internal >networks, which happen to be local in >> area. > >LAN implies local area network. So an

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS: .interNAL -> .LAN

> On Jan 27, 2024, at 16:42, Paul Marks wrote: > >  pick .lan > instead? It seems that a lot of people are already using this abbreviation > on their internal networks, which happen to be local in > area. LAN implies local area network. So an organization with multiple locations would have

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS: .interNAL -> .LAN

I recently sent this idea to ICANN, but I'm curious if DNSOP finds it interesting. There is currently a proposal to reserve .internal for private use. I think this word is bureaucratically and semantically the right choice, but 8 characters is too many to type. So let's take .internal and

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

[Sorry for the slow response — US holidays and a resolution not to look at my computer over said holidays got in the way] Doug, On Nov 27, 2019, at 8:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > I agree with Matt, Bill Woodcock, Steve Crocker, and others that have > expressed that we should stay out of ISO's

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:52 PM Doug Barton wrote: > On 11/28/19 2:20 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > > > - has the advice to anchor a private namespace in a registered domain in > > the private namespace really been received and judged to be > > insufficient? > > Yes. > > > Or has it just not been

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:52 PM Doug Barton wrote: > On 11/28/19 2:20 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > > > - does the growth in observed query traffic for names with non-existant > > top-level labels really support the idea that squatting on arbitrary > > undelegated TLDs is on the rise? Is it possible

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

Doug Barton writes: > I don't doubt Jaap. Thank you. > What I doubt is that any organization as political > as ISO (or ICANN) will hold preferences stable in the absence of a > controlling policy. Here are some more facts from the trivia corner. The ISO was started from 1947. The first

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On 11/28/19 4:24 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On Nov 28, 2019, at 19:07, Doug Barton wrote: Can you please explain why ICANN's work on name collision and the ongoing onslaught of queries at the root for un-delegated TLDs are not sufficient evidence? If it's not obvious from the questions I asked,

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On 11/28/19 5:15 PM, John R Levine wrote: On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Doug Barton wrote: I don't see how relying on ISO's advice is poaching.  They say: You, like Ted, are ignoring the fact that ISO can choose to change those rules. The user assigned codes are part of the published ISO 3166

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

I do think the semantic meaning of the label is worth thinking about, and I am wary of particular scripts or languages being chosen arbitrarily. ... Part of Roy's pitch was that the reserved two letter codes like .ZZ are equally meaningless in most languages. - has the advice to anchor a

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Doug Barton wrote: I don't see how relying on ISO's advice is poaching. They say: You, like Ted, are ignoring the fact that ISO can choose to change those rules. The user assigned codes are part of the published ISO 3166 standard. If that's not stable enough, neither

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On Nov 28, 2019, at 19:07, Doug Barton wrote: > Can you please explain why ICANN's work on name collision and the ongoing > onslaught of queries at the root for un-delegated TLDs are not sufficient > evidence? If it's not obvious from the questions I asked, then perhaps not. > And if not,

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

Can you please explain why ICANN's work on name collision and the ongoing onslaught of queries at the root for un-delegated TLDs are not sufficient evidence? And if not, how do you propose that we study it? Doug On 11/28/19 3:58 PM, Joe Abley wrote: Hi Doug, I appreciate the response and

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

Hi Doug, I appreciate the response and I don't doubt your experience, but I do think there is some value in a more robust study around some of these questions. Really the prevalence of no-doubt well-informed but largely unsubstantiated opinions (to the level of detail that I was trying to

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On 11/28/19 2:42 PM, Roy Arends wrote: On 28 Nov 2019, at 22:30, Doug Barton wrote: And if you don't think ICANN has promised to not delegate HOME, CORP, and MAIL; you didn't read the reference I provided. From section 3.2: "The deferral is not guaranteed to be forever”. That doesn’t

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On 11/28/19 2:20 PM, Joe Abley wrote: Hi Doug, I am not suggesting that you are wrong in your final paragraph, and I am not philosophically opposed to reserving a label in the root zone for private use, somehow analogously to RFC1918, but I think it's worth challenging how obvious this

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

> On 28 Nov 2019, at 22:30, Doug Barton wrote: > > And if you don't think ICANN has promised to not delegate HOME, CORP, and > MAIL; you didn't read the reference I provided. From section 3.2: "The deferral is not guaranteed to be forever”. That doesn’t read like a promise to not delegate

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

Hi Doug, I am not suggesting that you are wrong in your final paragraph, and I am not philosophically opposed to reserving a label in the root zone for private use, somehow analogously to RFC1918, but I think it's worth challenging how obvious this really is. (Yours is just a convenient hook

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On 11/28/19 8:55 AM, John Levine wrote: In article <71ad677a-8c88-8916-fe02-7d0d8ae93...@dougbarton.us> you write: I agree with Matt, Bill Woodcock, Steve Crocker, and others that have expressed that we should stay out of ISO's sandbox. Whatever the rules are today, they can change, and

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

The IETF and ICANN share a sandbox on many topics, including the root zone. (But of course you already knew that.) And if you don't think ICANN has promised to not delegate HOME, CORP, and MAIL; you didn't read the reference I provided. Or, if you did read it, and still have concerns, that is

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On Thursday, 28 November 2019 12:15:23 UTC Ted Lemon wrote: > So let me get this straight: you want us to stay out of ISO’s sandbox by > jumping right in to ICANN’s? ICANN has not promised never to delegate those > domains, whereas ISO effectively has, so your reasoning doesn’t make sense. ISO

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

In article <71ad677a-8c88-8916-fe02-7d0d8ae93...@dougbarton.us> you write: >I agree with Matt, Bill Woodcock, Steve Crocker, and others that have >expressed that we should stay out of ISO's sandbox. Whatever the rules >are today, they can change, and poaching their stuff for our purposes is

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

So let me get this straight: you want us to stay out of ISO’s sandbox by jumping right in to ICANN’s? ICANN has not promised never to delegate those domains, whereas ISO effectively has, so your reasoning doesn’t make sense. > On Nov 27, 2019, at 23:39, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 11/26/19

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On 11/26/19 9:16 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote: On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 05:19, Roy Arends > wrote: “ZZ” was used in my presentation as an example. Since this bikeshedding is siphoning attention from the important part of the discussion, I’ll try to re-focus on

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 05:19, Roy Arends wrote: > “ZZ” was used in my presentation as an example. Since this bikeshedding is > siphoning attention from the important part of the discussion, I’ll try to > re-focus on the question here: > > "Is it safe to use ISO3166-1 Alpha-2 code elements from

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

On Nov 26, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > It might be worth clarifying what the actual scope of this proposal is. I > think that the idea is to say “look, if you want to use a private name, these > names are known to be safe.” It’s not to say “the IETF hereby declares that > the

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

It might be worth clarifying what the actual scope of this proposal is. I think that the idea is to say “look, if you want to use a private name, these names are known to be safe.” It’s not to say “the IETF hereby declares that the following names are safe,” but rather “the IETF is

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

> On Nov 26, 2019, at 11:46 AM, Jim Reid wrote: >> On 26 Nov 2019, at 10:18, Roy Arends wrote: >> "Is it safe to use ISO3166-1 Alpha-2 code elements from the User Assigned >> range as top level domains for my own private use?" >> It is my understanding that the ISO3166 Maintenance Agency can

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 10:18, Roy Arends wrote: > > "Is it safe to use ISO3166-1 Alpha-2 code elements from the User Assigned > range as top level domains for my own private use?" > > ... > It is my understanding that the ISO3166 Maintenance Agency can not re-assign > codes from the User

[DNSOP] on private use TLDS

“ZZ” was used in my presentation as an example. Since this bikeshedding is siphoning attention from the important part of the discussion, I’ll try to re-focus on the question here: "Is it safe to use ISO3166-1 Alpha-2 code elements from the User Assigned range as top level domains for my own