In message <d170e3e4.1011f2%jason_living...@cable.comcast.com>, "Livingood, Jas on" writes: > On 5/6/15, 2:07 PM, "Suzanne Woolf" > <suzworldw...@gmail.com<mailto:suzworldw...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> 2. In the particular cases of home/corp/mail, ICANN has >> studied the possibilities of name collisions, and decided not to delegate >> those names at this time. The proposal is that the IETF reserve those >> names for unspecified special use permanently. It seems that an IETF >> action on those names is redundant, unless it's in opposition to some >> action contemplated under ICANN policy (for which there is no apparent >> mechanism). Is the possibility of the same names considered under >> multiple policies a problem?
"home", "corp" and perhaps "mail" need special handling if we really want to not cause problems for those using those tlds internally. To do this there needs to be a insecure delegation to break the DNSSEC chain of trust. This will allow any server to filter leaked queries without causing validation failures. It will also allow DNSSEC validators to work without special knowledge of these tlds. > By `redundant' do you mean the IETF should take no action? That seems to > leave those names in a no-mans-land that could be problematic in the > long-term, and the uncertainty could inhibit experimentation/investment > in the home networking space. > > I'd rather see the IETF consider these names which are widely used and > possibly add them to a new RFC, which then can be entered into and > referred to from the IANA special-use domain name registry at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domai > n-names.xhtml Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
