Yup. This is very similar to what the earlier JAS report ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-26feb14-en.pdf) said: RECOMMENDATION 1: The TLDs .corp, .home, and .mail be permanently reserved for internal use and receive RFC 1918-like protection/treatment, potentially via RFC 6761.
The slidedeck presented at the NameCollisions workshop said: "The TLDs .corp, .home and .mail should be permanently reserved" Their new recommendation is almost exactly the same: RECOMMENDATION 1: The TLDs .corp, .home, and .mail be referred to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for potential RFC 1918-like protection/treatment. So, yay for consistency. However, draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02) tried to do exactly this. >From the Abstract: "This document reserves three domain name labels for special use in accordance with the criteria and procedures of [RFC6761]: home, corp, and mail." On July 14th, 2015 DNSOP decided not to adopt this document - https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg14887.html This is all part of the larger discussions on the IETF handling of RFC6761 / Special Use Names (a topic which will make me start frothing at the mouth, and run my dinner), so I'm going to jsut leave it at that... W On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:16 AM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > ICANN's published the final version of JAS' namespace collision report. > The > first version came out a year ago but parts of it were redacted because > they > stumbled across a horrible bug in some Microsoft software and wanted to > give > MS time to fix it. The final version isn't very different other than > fleshing > out some interesting details. > > It says that for the most part namespace collsions aren't a big > problem, but there are significant exceptions. It has a list of > recommendations, starting with this one: > > RECOMMENDATION 1: The TLDs .corp, .home, and .mail be referred to the > Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for potential RFC 1918-like > protection/treatment. > > Here's the URL of the announcement with the link to the report. The > interesting bit of the report is section 5.7 on pages 38-39: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-11-30-en > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
