On 04. 02. 25 22:49, Kim Davies wrote:
We have published a new version of the draft intended to document
the .internal top-level domain. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
davies-internal-tld/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-
internal-tld/>)
When we presented this work in Dublin, there was a lot of discussion
both in the meeting, and subsequently, on whether this should be a work
item and also whether the domain merited consideration as a special-use
domain name per RFC 6761. I don’t think there was clear consensus on
either, but to further the discussion on the latter point, Warren Kumari
has provided strawman text to stimulate discussion.
Thank you for opening it!
TL;DR please copy RFC 6761 section 6.1 into draft's section 5.1.
Logic behind this proposal follows:
#1
I can't see any difference between the intended use of:
- 10.in-addr.arpa.
- internal.
#2
RFC 6761 section 6.1 already established special rules for
10.in-addr.arpa.
#3
We have operational experience with special handling of 10.in-addr.arpa.
- it works! BIND does that _by default_ since version 9.9.0rc1, released
on 2012-01-09. (FTR support for this special handling was added in ~
2005 but was not enabled by default.)
#4
Consequently, IMHO, internal. should have the same treatment as zones
listed in RFC 6761 section 6.1.
#5
Doing so also solves the DNSSEC trouble outlined by Mark Andrews in a
different sub-thread.
--
Petr Špaček
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
