On Sunday, February 9, 2025 10:25:41 PM CET John Levine wrote: > They're not thinking about it. They did it. See > https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-top-level-domain > -string-for-private-use-24-01-2024 > The question here is what if anything the IETF should do about it, with a > variety of options such as do nothing, add it to the RFC 6761 registry, > and/or ask IANA to put a DNSSEC opt-out in the root zone. > > R's, > John
Hi John, thanks for the heads-up. I've read the linked article and noticed that I have at least 3 years of catching up to do. So far it appears that the decision to use the string "internal" specifically has reached reasonable consensus, but I think I could use a confirmation on that. Do you think that is the case? If so, I would see no problem proceeding to make this change on the next maintenance. Just that I uh.. don't want to have to do this twice. As for what's supposed to happen with DNSSEC, I'll admit that I neither use nor understand it sufficiently, so I don't feel entitled to comment on that. I just make the recursive part of my DNS servers recurse to Cloudflare and hope for the best. If they (or someone else on the path) decide to make their servers lie to me, I might have a bigger problem on my hands. As a side note, I find it interesting to see that there were only 32 public comments, for a change I would consider to be as fundamental as RFC1918 address space. A small group of very influential people huh... What I also find noteworthy is that some of these comments requested for .internal to be something shorter. Going with the logic behind .lan, .vpn, and .sat, I would gravitate towards .int. But let's not pretend that we can just take "international" to suddenly become "our little internal networks" ;-) -- Met vriendelijke groet, Michael De Roover Mail: [email protected] Web: michael.de.roover.eu.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
