> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 11:12 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 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. > > On 6/11/24 10:40, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > 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. > > My preference would be to recommend "sacrificial.invalid" as getting a > special- > use TLD would take time and I don't know what it offers over > "sacrificial.invalid". But I don't have a strong preference other than we > should > be more specific about what to use.
[SAH] OK, we can do that. > > > >> 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. > > Good point, and this doesn't seem worth the effort without an EPP > component. We can always revisit this later if it matters. [SAH] Agreed. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
