Hi Benno, So it seems to me that the question of adoption is the same as the question for whether this domain should be added to the Special-Use Domain Name registry.
I do not believe this domain fits the criteria for that registry, and therefore think it should not be added. I will spare the list my handwaving on why I think that, but any masochists in the audience are welcome to endure the archives to find out more. For this reason I do not support adoption of this document by this working group. Joe > On 16 Apr 2025, at 14:30, Benno Overeinder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Geoff, Joe, all, > > I understand the confusion caused by the Editor note at the beginning of > Section 5.1. We have discussed the status of the document with the authors, > and the intention is for it to be published as a Proposed Standard in order > to add the label to the Special-Use Domain Name registry. > > If the draft is adopted by the DNSOP working group, Section 5, IANA > Considerations, will be updated accordingly. With Proposed Standard status, > the .internal label is intended to be added to the Special-Use Domain Name > registry. > > We hope this answers your questions. > > > On behalf of the DNSOP co-chairs, > -- Benno > > > > On 16/04/2025 13:17, Joe Abley wrote: >> Hi Geoff, >> I have previously disagreed with you about whether adding this name to the >> special use domain names registry is a good idea. But I very much agree with >> you about this adoption call, or at least I am confused about the same >> things that you say you are confused about. >> If we are not adding this domain to the registry in question, we don't need >> a document. Surely clarity on that fundamental question should come first. >> Joe >> On 15 Apr 2025, at 22:24, Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I am left asking myself: what is the purpose of this document? >>> >>> I had assumed that the purpose was to provide RFC documentation to justify >>> the inclusion of this label in the Special Use Domain Name registry, but >>> the draft reads: "(Editor note: It not yet decided if the "internal" >>> top-level domain should be added to the list of special-use domain names..." >>> >>> If there is no intent to add this label to the Special Use registry then >>> what is the intent of this document and why is it being proposed to be an >>> RFC? >>> >>> Why is DNSOP being asked to adopt this document if there is no clarity as >>> to what is being proposed here? >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> Geoff >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 15 Apr 2025, at 6:38 pm, Benno Overeinder <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> At IETF 122, there appeared to be some agreement to adopt this work within >>>> DNSOP. >>>> >>>> Below are the relevant meeting minutes and a link to the presentation from >>>> the session: >>>> >>>> A Top-level Domain for Private Use, Warren Kumari >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-internal-tld/ >>>> Ted: Should work on this >>>> Tommy Jensen: Work on here >>>> Consider that libraries MAY treat it as special to catch >>>> things >>>> from going upstream >>>> Stuart Cheshire: Agree with logic, should be listed in registry >>>> Jim: Not for IETF because ICANN told us what to do >>>> Maybe figure out the process >>>> Thanks for bearing with all the machinations >>>> Mark: Locally served registry requires that the names have insecure >>>> delegations in the DNS >>>> Bring-your-own-devices work because of this insecure >>>> validation >>>> Suzanne: How much work is needed? >>>> Warren: Almost no work >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/materials/slides-122-dnsop- >>>> sessa-draft-davies-internal-tld-a-top-level-domain-for-private-use-00 >>>> >>>> >>>> Warren Kumari has responded to some of the questions raised at the mic >>>> during the session in an email to the mailing list. >>>> >>>> This email begins a Call for Adoption for draft-davies-internal-tld, "A >>>> Top-level Domain for Private Use." >>>> >>>> You can find the draft here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- >>>> davies-internal-tld/ >>>> >>>> Please review the draft and share your thoughts on the mailing list, >>>> clearly stating whether you support its adoption by DNSOP. Also let us >>>> know if you are willing to contribute text, provide reviews, or help in >>>> other ways. >>>> >>>> Due to the Easter holiday, we are extending the usual timeline for this >>>> call. >>>> >>>> The Call for Adoption will end on May 2, 2025. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> For DNSOP co-chairs >>>> -- Benno >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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] >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > -- > Benno J. Overeinder > NLnet Labs > https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
