Thanks for the feedback, Andy. More below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 4:58 AM > To: regext@ietf.org; Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] sacrificial hosts in epp-delete bcp > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > Hi Scott, > > Section 6.2 of the EPP Delete BCP discusses the proposed best practices, with > section 6.2.2 referencing back to 5.1.7. However, 5.1.7 mentions possible > names such as sacrificial.invalid or a proposed new reserved TLD such as > .sacrificial. For implementation purposes, I think 6.2.2 should be a little > more > prescriptive in the name to use, especially since .sacrificial is not > currently a > special-use TLD nor does this document make it one. In other words, I think > 6.2.2 should RECOMMEND a name or name pattern. I don't know if we always > want the practice to be "sacrificial.invalid" or allow "my-special- > stuff.sacrificial.invalid" or "i-delete-domains.invalid", but allowing each > registrar to make up their own name may have a downside (speculation on my > part).
[SAH] Yes, we could make a specific recommendation in 6.2.2. What should that recommendation be, though? I'm leaning towards a recommendation for community action to identify the most appropriate special use domain. > If there is no specific SLD such as "sacrificial.invalid", then it might make > sense > to also have a new EPP and RDAP status of "sacrificial" to help identify these > hosts. [SAH] We could do that for RDAP, but EPP status values are defined in the associated RFCs. They're not registered with IANA. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
