On Monday, 15 June 2020 22:46:17 UTC Tony Finch wrote: > Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > there are perhaps more than three, and some might not be yet known by > > those who will want them. the reason why some part of the DNS namespace > > should be reserved in the form, "shall never be allocated by IANA", is > > not because we cannot think of a good enough and present cause why such a > > thing may be desirable. > > Fair enough, but what you are suggesting seems to be quite different from > what this draft is suggesting. You seem to be talking about reserving for > future use, or for lab environments that never connects to any other part > of the Internet, whereas this draft is just suggesting that everyone > should use these ISO 3166 reserved codes as a 192.168 free-for-all instead > of .lan or .home or whatever they are currently squatting on.
i expect the problem statement and proposed solution to be subject to the usual WG process. it's possible that the ISO 3166 reservations _should_ stand. or else, that a new IETF-reserved code should be created. i'm not using .local at the moment, but i remember collision studies around .corp and .home. i'm not sure i care how the IETF promises never to allow some tld to be delegated (other than as a wildcard pointing to AS112, or similar), but i'd like to see it. > I.e. the proposed use case is already widely deployed and known to be a > bad idea. known by whom, and how? (got URL?) -- Paul
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
