> On 23 Apr 2025, at 15:15, Philip Homburg <pch-dnso...@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
>
> So in my opinion this draft should not be adopted. The best solution is
> no IETF document at all. That leaves the IETF out of this issue.
I agree. Albeit for different reasons.
ICANN already has its own list/registry of TLD strings it will never delegate:
.home, .corp, .mail, etc. IMO they can simply add .internal to that list and
the job will be done for everyone. There's no need to involve the IETF. Of
course it would be a different story if ICANN was minded to delegate strings
that are in the IANA SUDN registry. Which isn't the case here.
There's nothing for the IETF to do for .internal - apart from keeping well away
from the layer-9+ intrigues which engulf ICANN's choice of new TLDs.
It's not clear to me how/if .internal is special from a protocol or operational
perspective => and therefore making it in-scope for the IETF somehow. Or
"special" enough in some other way to merit adding it to the IANA SUDN
registry. Which BTW doesn't have entries for .home. corp and so on. Those TLDs
obviously weren't special enough to get added. So what, if anything, justifies
adding .internal when other "blocked by ICANN" TLDs aren't on the SUDN list?
PS For clarity, I'm not suggesting we add those "blocked by ICANN" TLDs.
They're already handled elsewhere and can simply stay where they are.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
