On Nov 26, 2019, at 9:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett <[email protected]> wrote: > >For those who read the draft, ypu'll see that "trying to take back part of > >it" is not there. The same was made clear in the presentation to the WG. "If > >you want a private name, here's one to consider; ones like it are already > >being used as private names in dozens of other contexts" is far from > >"taking" anything. > > It's still the IETF stating that it's safe to use for that purpose, which is > no longer the purview of the IETF having delegated that responsibility to > ISO3166. That is taking back authority over that name.
The term "safe" doesn't appear in draft-arends-private-use-tld. If you have words you would prefer there to make it clearer that what is being proposed is just "If you want a private name, here's one to consider; ones like it are already being used as private names in dozens of other contexts", I bet Roy would consider adding it. Bigger picture: this WG often gets tied between "we want to be the place recommending best practices for private naming" and "we disagree what settings to put on these three knobs when we are talking about private naming". I would like to think that it is not impossible for this to be resolved, because there is no better set of experienced people to deal with the thorny issue of private naming. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
