On 6 May 2025, at 07:49, Petr Špaček <pspa...@isc.org> wrote: > IMHO point #1 is not applicable because that's what we are discussing just > now. Saying 'it's different because we did not reached conclusion yet' seems > kinda moot point.
I think we are discussing whether the IETF would achieve anything useful by writing about .INTERNAL as part of an adoption call which is why I waved my hands about policy (in a topic that includes ICANN, SSAC, the IETF and the root zone it seems inevitable for hands to wave about policy.) However, if were talking about whether or not an insecure delegation for INTERNAL should be installed in the root zone, then I if we imagined that has happened, there would be no technical differences of the differences would be minor (they will all exist as insecure delegations but perhaps to different servers). If you were talking about how a private namespace under INTERNAL might look to one of its intended clients, I think for most clients they all look the same without an insecure delegation but that it is possible to imagine scenarios where not having a public insecure delegation for INTERNAL might make it look different. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
