On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 11:17 AM Peter Thomassen <peter= 40desec...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> On 4/23/25 16:15, Philip Homburg wrote: > [ ... ] > > For this working group, I think it is safe to assume that ICANN will not > > create an insecure delegation for internal. > > > > 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. Be it upon advice of SSAC or not, if we find ourselves in a > situation that this WG has no good way of dealing with, I think it's OK to > not deal with it. > I agree also. Also, the IETF should not be publishing documents with technically unsound advice. So we should not be recommending using ".internal" (see my previous note in this thread). I would be more comfortable with an alternative draft about best practices for using private domains. The main benefit of the ICANN board resolution I see is to prevent collateral damage caused by the unwise use of .internal by existing organizations, namely to defend against name collision risk by private queries for these domains leaking out to the internet. The IETF doesn't really need to say anything further on the subject in my view. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
