On 16. 06. 20 13:00, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 12. 06. 20 17:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >> All, >> >> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run >> regular calls for adoptions over the next few months. We are looking for >> *explicit* support for adoption. >> >> >> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-arends-private-use-tld >> >> The draft is available here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arends-private-use-tld/ >> >> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by >> DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. >> >> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. >> >> This call for adoption ends: 26 June 2020 > > I support adoption but share opinion that the document should not be > published as is. > > Rationale: > - People are going to squat on global DNS no matter what IETF does. > - This document is an opportunity to: > a) Say "squating is a bad idea, see RFC 8244 and think it through" before you > decide to squat. > b) Highlight _already reserved_ (by ISO) TLD strings for people who ignored > warning in point [a] above. > c) I believe that side-effect of getting people _who insist on private TLD > anyway_ one of 40-something strings instead of "pick your > not-really-random-TLD" can lead to decrassing traffic to root and easier > monitoring in practice as caching should work better (either with query name > minimization or aggressive use of cache).
An off-list reply indicates that I was not clear so I'll attempt to clarify my previous message. In my mind the document should say: 1. _If possible_ use a subdomain you own, it will save you headache later on (e.g. when you decide to set up VPN to your supplier, but I do not insist on this specific example). 2. If you think you need non-unique private subtree read list of problems listed in ... [link to some other document] and think again. 3. Never ever squat 4. If this document did not change you mind use one of /zz/ To me it seems that most dnsop people (me included) do not want to legitimize use unnecessary use of private names as it often causes unnecessary pain down the road - but at the same time I personally recognize the motivation for home.arpa. etc. In general I want discourage from using private namespaces _unless absolutely necessary_, and this document has potential to make this a conscious choice instead of just picking "lan" without thinking about long-term consequences. -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
