On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 8:30 AM, 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. > Yup, what Benno said… The "It not yet decided.." text was added when it was still unclear if A: DNSOP might be willing to adopt it and B: if DNSOP would want it to be added to the SUDN registry if so. I agree that having DNSOP adopt it and not add it to SUDN would be weird, and I obviously think that it should be added, but I did not want to be presumptive. So, if adopted by DNSOP, I / we will: 1: update the track to PS 2: remove the "It not yet decided…" 3: discuss Tommy Jensen's "considering "MAY" for allowing resolution libraries to treat this specially" 4: whatever else the WG wants… :-) W > 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] > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
