Hi Geoff, On 5 Feb 2025, at 12:34, Geoff Huston <g...@apnic.net> wrote:
I found Paul's list of answers to the 6761 questions quite accurate. I presume you did not, or you would presumably agree that the associated criteria are not met. Can you say more about why you disagree with Paul's summary? I don't think section 5.1 of the draft provides good guidance to the contrary, either. I'll show my working: Q1: there is nothing special about how these names are used by end-users Q2: there is nothing special about how these names are used by applications Q3: there is nothing special about how these names are used by name resolution APIs and libraries Q4: there is nothing special about how these names are used by resolvers Q5: I disagree with the text in the document; the described special handling is in fact completely standard handling; I see nothing special about how these names are used by authoritative servers. Q6: Similarly to Q5, this is completely standard behaviour. There is nothing special about .INTERNAL here; the text describes precisely what I might do with the zone INTERNAL.STRANDKIP.NL which does not exist in the public DNS but which might well have meaning inside my home network. Q7: There is also nothing special here: registries and registrars cannot possibly allow someone to register a name in a TLD that does not exist. RFC 6761 section 3: [...] if declaring a given name to be special would result in no change to any implementations, then that suggests that the name may not be special in any material way, and it may be more appropriate to use the existing DNS mechanisms [RFC1034] to provide the desired delegation, data, or lack-of-data, for the name in question. This all seems quite clear to me; neither the INTERNAL name itself nor any name in the INTERNAL domain is "special in any material way". Joe |
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
