On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote: > On 9/29/16, 03:27, "DNSOP on behalf of John Levine" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org > on behalf of jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> Last year Ed Lewis wrote an I-D proposing that XA-XZ be made private use and >> the rest future use, but as far as I can tell it never went anywhere. > > I'd been waiting for anyone else to show an interest in it before spending > any time on it. This is the first mention I've seen on a public list about > the draft. ;) > > As David wrote in a later message, the dam burst on Special Use Domain Name > registry discussions. > >>I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their local >>network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely ever to >>collide with a real DNS name. Am I right? > > I'd have to say not right to be "telling people". The one option you have is > ".example", unfortunately (and in sympathy) I don't have a better suggestion.
I (and a few others) had considered writing a document requesting that .internal be reserved according to 6761, but: A: that process is currently closed and we were asked to not make any new suggestions until (at least) the SUN problem statement was adopted settled. B: it was unclear why a whole separate draft was needed and not just add some text to draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld, saying .alt for alternate name resolutions and .internal for names which use the DNS, but are not part of the global DNS space and C: why not just use .alt for this? It is clear that these should not hit the global DNS, and should fail (get NXD) if they do. It is clearly different to a ccTLD (at least some users have learnt that things of the form .xx are "countries" - lets not confuse them further). > > Heuristically, you might be okay using these codes but it's that > same-old-same-old problem of assuming the future. My preference would be to > put the appropriate codes in to the Special Use Domain Name registry before > "telling people". I stress the "telling people" because you using ".qy" > isn't ever going to come to harm (because you can change that "if"). > > BTW, the user assigned two-letter codes are not the same as unassigned codes. > These have been expressly set aside for local use, these codes aren't > eligible for use in any other way, no matter what a new region might call > itself. That is, it's more likely some other novel use for one of these > codes might be found than the code ever matching an economy's identifier. > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
