Re: [DNSOP] An Orderly Way Forward on Special Use Names (Yes, again)

On Oct 2, 2022, at 22:33, Paul Wouters wrote: > > Speaking as AD, I should clarify, as an AD. Not the AD for DNSOP. Paul > > This topic came up at the last IESG telechat, partially in response to Paul > Hoffman’s https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfc6761bis/ and my > concerns

Re: [DNSOP] An Orderly Way Forward on Special Use Names (Yes, again)

Speaking as AD, This topic came up at the last IESG telechat, partially in response to Paul Hoffman’s https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfc6761bis/ and my concerns about the infinite amount of time this issue has cost and is still costing dnsop at the expense of protocol work. The

Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for Namespaced Service Names

It appears that Jeremy Saklad said: >As an example, take a look at the Wikipedia page on SRV records: >. > Of the >19 examples of usage, at least 7 use service names that are not in IANA’s >registry. One, Matrix, even

[DNSOP] An Orderly Way Forward on Special Use Names (Yes, again)

Dear colleagues, The chairs have been working for some time on a plan to address the ongoing issues around special use domain names (described in RFC 6761) and the domain namespace. These issues are described in RFC8244 - "Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement"

[DNSOP] Proposal for Namespaced Service Names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I’ve noticed that an increasing amount of invaluable functionality, such as SRV and soon SVCB records, relies on services being registered with IANA as described in RFC 6335. I’ve also noticed that, in practice, a considerable amount of usage reli