> On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:12 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: > > draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 says "This document requests that the > .internal TLD be assigned to the IANA (similar to the way that > .example is) and a DNSSEC insecure delegation (that is, a delegation > with no DS records) be inserted into the root-zone, delegated to > blackhole-[12].iana.org." > > This implies NS records in the root. Why not using the DNAMEs of RFC > 7535 instead? I understand there is currently no ICANN process to add > DNAME in the root zone but there is no process to add .internal > either.
Without commenting on the contents of that particular draft, I'll note that from a technical/mechanical perspective, ICANN's and Verisign's root zone management systems already know how to deal with delegations. A DNAME in the root would require an unknown level of development by both parties. While you're correct about no existing process (that I'm aware of) to add either .internal or a DNAME to the root, at least with a delegation there is only process work, not technical work, as well. Adding new types of information to the root is certainly possible: I'm not trying to discourage that. But for planning and expectation-setting purposes, the community needs to take into account the long lead time that will be required for anything that requires technical modifications to the root zone management system. Matt _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
