For what it’s worth, I am in favor of adopting this document. With that said, however, I do have questions, Roy.
If we use these ccTLDs as squatting domains, that means that we’re going to see a lot of traffic at the root trying to find nonexistent name servers, right? And these ccTLDs provably do not exist, right? Contrariwise, home.arpa has an un-signed delegation. Queries for home.arpa are no worse than queries for any other .arpa subdomain, as far as the root is concerned. On the other hand, perhaps they are worse for .arpa, and since in fact .arpa is currently served by the root servers, perhaps this makes no difference. What’s the difference we’ll see in traffic for the root versus traffic for .arpa if people adopt known-unused, securely nonexistent ccTLDs instead of an un-signed delegation under .arpa? Also, what do you think the operational effect of this will be? Given that these domains are currently provably nonexistent, this means that a resolver looking up names in these domains will have to special-case them. This is not true for home.arpa. Are we okay with the operational effects of this? Or is it a gap in the current version of your document that IANA is not instructed to delegate these domains in the same way that home.arpa is delegated (see section 7 of RFC8375)? Similarly, is it an omission in the current document that these domains are not listed in the “transport-independent locally-served zones” IANA registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/locally-served-dns-zones/locally-served-dns-zones.xhtml)? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
