> On Feb 4, 2025, at 4:49 PM, Kim Davies <kim.dav...@iana.org> wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > We have published a new version of the draft intended to document the > .internal top-level domain. > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-internal-tld/ > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1wL3tfrwQ6JxaBo9-XvwsA_Nahe2UUmEH7JTf_uvCUh7hyS4bNVwO7ystIkidXlX0prAvh8mAVxwkG-QKsT3VEp5TV_0FZjt_6Ppb4bOTQgbFIwlU3PaJFykiPKGLVvRnoyAQLTbWZceZwwdYn4Fw8EKgBHGuml6JX-eWDcSm9TM8rdRYE-GF5Zw7-kA2gBgyvnXE2VrefyPx8jJSsoMgPB2L2oNqbUbLLs2doGF-lwiLRHnaqhz-KV6bf2l5GGYM2gXJUCr5Q5d4W5as6p0iQqjVPI6zFjkX2JEozzlCSUmMf680a54LbHQdEJtf5wuABalAXsaBF2XAmke5zin3Dg/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-davies-internal-tld%2F>) > > When we presented this work in Dublin, there was a lot of discussion both in > the meeting, and subsequently, on whether this should be a work item and also > whether the domain merited consideration as a special-use domain name per RFC > 6761. I don’t think there was clear consensus on either, but to further the > discussion on the latter point, Warren Kumari has provided strawman text to > stimulate discussion. > > kim
I think .internal definitely should be a special use domain name, just like
.invalid, .test, and others. The text for RFC 6761 consideration 4 should be
similar to those others, e.g.:
4. Caching DNS servers SHOULD, by default, recognize .internal
names as special and SHOULD NOT, by default, attempt to look
up NS records for them, or otherwise query authoritative DNS
servers in an attempt to resolve .internal names. Instead,
caching DNS servers SHOULD, by default, generate immediate
negative responses for all such queries. This is to avoid
unnecessary load on the root name servers and other name
servers.
I’d really like to see MUST instead of SHOULD but I suspect most will think
thats a step too far.
DW
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
