Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Thanks Tim, Suzanne and Benno. I will get a new version out asap. Warmly, Roy > On 30 Sep 2020, at 07:42, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All > > The call for adoption ended some time ago, and should have been resolved > relatively quickly. However, given past controversies on related issues, we

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

All The call for adoption ended some time ago, and should have been resolved relatively quickly. However, given past controversies on related issues, we engaged the IAB for their guidance because they are responsible for the IETF’s liaison relationship with ICANN. We discovered that understandab

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 18 Jun 2020, at 16:15, Ted Lemon wrote: > > For what it’s worth, I am in favor of adopting this document. With that said, > however, I do have questions, Roy. Thanks for your support. > If we use these ccTLDs as squatting domains, that means that we’re going to > see a lot of traffic at th

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> The root zone and private-use internal zones that anchor private > namespaces might all benefit from a robust trust anchor distribution > strategy. If validators have the ability to be configured elegantly > with all the trust anchors they need without the attention of a > knowledgeable administr

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Jun 18, 2020, at 2:24 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > ... and I should point out that this was one of the arguments in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00#section-4.3 > > for an (insecure) delegation

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 1:47 PM Ted Lemon wrote: > > It can be solved with a trust anchor as well, but that relies on there being > a central validating resolver rather than validating stub resolvers on hosts, > and personally I don’t find that deployment model very compelling anymore—I > think

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Jun 18, 2020, at 19:22, Ted Lemon wrote: > What I’m getting at is that the secure denial of existence will mean that a > DNSSEC-aware resolver, when asked to look up a name under .xa, for example, > will always return NXDOMAIN. I think we're speculating about behaviour in software that has

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

It can be solved with a trust anchor as well, but that relies on there being a central validating resolver rather than validating stub resolvers on hosts, and personally I don’t find that deployment model very compelling anymore—I think that stub resolvers should validate. If I get my way, then

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 6/18/20 7:22 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> I suspect it will work like every other locally-served domain or >> every other private namespace that exists today, i.e. just fine with >> no configuration changes expected or required on dependent >> (downstream) DNS clients. And if there are new species of

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Jun 18, 2020, at 12:10 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > > [As an aside, I have some concerns about RFC 8375 and I wish I was paying > more attention at the time it was discussed. Although I can understand some > of the technical arguments for the delegation, I'm not especially convinced > by them in

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 18 Jun 2020, at 17:16, Philip Homburg wrote: > >> basically all the domains you list here could have used one of >> their own domains (eg local.telus.com instead of .telus, etc) > > I wonder how that would interact with EU privacy regulations. In the common > case of an ISP providing the cust

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

.gnu and .onion were never intended as private use. Gnu was meant as just another top level domain, and .onion is supposed to work over a (private but remote) network. Maybe “.local” would have been a candidate to use one of the iso3166-1 Alpha-2 user assigned string. On 18 Jun 2020, at 17:

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

>But that problem is independent of the domain names used. If the CPE >sends queries to the ISP, the deed has already been done, regardless of >what the ISP does with the query (send it to the root, to telus.com or >drops it) Sending a query to the root, which is considered a collection of neutral

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Philip Homburg wrote: basically all the domains you list here could have used one of their own domains (eg local.telus.com instead of .telus, etc) I wonder how that would interact with EU privacy regulations. In the common case of an ISP providing the customer with a CPE,

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> basically all the domains you list here could have used one of > their own domains (eg local.telus.com instead of .telus, etc) I wonder how that would interact with EU privacy regulations. In the common case of an ISP providing the customer with a CPE, the ISP is resposible for anything that goe

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi Ted, On Jun 18, 2020, at 17:15, Ted Lemon wrote: > If we use these ccTLDs as squatting domains, that means that we’re going to > see a lot of traffic at the root trying to find nonexistent name servers, > right? And these ccTLDs provably do not exist, right? RFC 8198 was implemented in BI

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Roy Arends wrote: To me it seems that most dnsop people (me included) do not want to legitimize use unnecessary use of private names as it often causes unnecessary pain down the road - but at the same time I personally recognize the motivation for home.arpa. etc. I want

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

For what it’s worth, I am in favor of adopting this document. With that said, however, I do have questions, Roy. If we use these ccTLDs as squatting domains, that means that we’re going to see a lot of traffic at the root trying to find nonexistent name servers, right? And these ccTLDs provabl

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 18 Jun 2020, at 08:03, Petr Špaček wrote: >> >> I support adoption but share opinion that the document should not be >> published as is. Ack. Please help the editors to mold it into the right structure when (if) the idea is adopted. And thank you for your support! > 1. _If possible_ u

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 18/06/2020 08:04:47, Petr Špaček wrote: On 16. 06. 20 13:00, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 12. 06. 20 17:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >> All, >> >> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run >> regular calls for adoptions over the next few months.   We are looking for

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Thursday, 18 June 2020 07:03:23 UTC Petr Špaček wrote: > ... > An off-list reply indicates that I was not clear so I'll attempt to clarify > my previous message. In my mind the document should say: > > 1. _If possible_ use a subdomain you own, it will save you headache later on > (e.g. when you

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 16. 06. 20 13:00, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 12. 06. 20 17:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >> All, >> >> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run >> regular calls for adoptions over the next few months.   We are looking for >> *explicit* support for adoption. >> >> >

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Michael, RFC1591 says that the IANA (Function Operator) "[...]is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

[ TOP POST ] As previously noted in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7AzjYP3XoLaPYKPjPzQzEn6k7L4/ , in July 2017 I published https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00, which attempted to reserve .internal "for names which do not have meaning in the global context but d

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 16 Jun 2020, at 21:26, John R Levine wrote: > >> RFC2606: ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples. > > I had my reasons for https://www.mega-xxx-babes.com That was actually funny :-) Roy ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

RFC2606: ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples. I had my reasons for https://www.mega-xxx-babes.com Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 16 Jun 2020, at 19:52, John Levine wrote: > > In article <3c1f1023-d17d-4739-8ca3-23f28254a...@internetstiftelsen.se> you > write: >> I have a different use case for private TLDs and that is in teaching >> material. We give a DNS class at a university >> here and in examples you cannot be re

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

In article <64f09dbc-d465-4a05-be2f-14c71bec9...@fugue.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:52 PM, John Levine wrote: >> When I put domain names in my books as examples, I used real names and >> bought them. In common domains they're not very expensive. > >Have you established a

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:52 PM, John Levine wrote: > When I put domain names in my books as examples, I used real names and > bought them. In common domains they're not very expensive. Have you established a bequest, then, to cover the cost when you are no longer able? This is the problem with do

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

In article <3c1f1023-d17d-4739-8ca3-23f28254a...@internetstiftelsen.se> you write: >I have a different use case for private TLDs and that is in teaching material. >We give a DNS class at a university >here and in examples you cannot be restricted to .example as TLD because you >need more than on

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 15 Jun 2020, at 19:58, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > or since domains are cheap, why not buy a new domain, and use that for the > namespace? > A wise person liked to remind me "Namespaces are architecture decisions”. I have a different use case for private TLDs and that is in teaching material.

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 16 Jun 2020, at 15:51, Mats Dufberg > wrote: > > I support the adoption and I am willing to review the document. Me too! I wish everyone else commenting on this thread just indicated if they supported adoption (or not). Too much of the discussion that’s taking place at the moment seem

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

I support the adoption and I am willing to review the document. --- Mats Dufberg mats.dufb...@internetstiftelsen.se Technical Expert Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation) Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://internetstiftelsen.se/ On 12 Jun

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

- I think it would make sense for non-TLDs to be DNAME'd to AS112++'s empty zone (which generates an NXDOMAIN) You want this in the root? * IN DNAME EMPTY.AS112.ARPA. That'd be, um, different. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please conside

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 12. 06. 20 17:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular calls for adoptions over the next few months.   We are looking for > *explicit* support for adoption. > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-arend

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Joe Abley wrote: > > However, given that this document only points out an option that already > exist and doesn't actually recommend using a TLD versus any other > anchor, I don't think any of that matters. I think it's up to another > document to provide that kind of advice. It's hard to see any

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:30 PM Tony Finch wrote: > Brian Dickson wrote: > > - In addition to leaking information, these names generally should > > not have any presence in DNS caches, which makes them excellent > > candidates > > for easy poisoning > > These issues happen in e

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Jun 15, 2020, at 21:21, Tony Finch wrote: > Yes, that's why I pointed it out. The intro fairly explicitly says it's a > replacement for .lan (etc.), but that raises questions about how this > draft relates to other efforts to fix the .lan problem. I think your reading of the text just indica

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Brian Dickson wrote: > > Precisely because you want a non-TLD (we should remember this is NOT an > actual TLD), for a number of reasons: > >- You want to be able to limit the places any leaked traffic goes > - Currently this would be the Root Servers And any resolvers in between there a

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Joe Abley wrote: > On Jun 15, 2020, at 18:46, Tony Finch wrote: > > > The intro to this draft talks about things like x- which has been > > deprecated since RFC 6648. It mentions some situationw where .test or > > ..invalid would seem to be the right things to use, but it doesn't say why > > not.

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:59 PM Tony Finch wrote: > Brian Dickson wrote: > > > Internal-only use is not only satisfied with non-delegated name spaces, > it > > actually is a much better fit for everything. > > Yes, I agree, but why does the point of non-delegation have to be a > squatted collisi

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Brian Dickson wrote: > Internal-only use is not only satisfied with non-delegated name spaces, it > actually is a much better fit for everything. Yes, I agree, but why does the point of non-delegation have to be a squatted collision-prone TLD, rather than a guaranteed collision-free subdomain of

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Jun 15, 2020, at 18:46, Tony Finch wrote: > The intro to this draft talks about things like x- which has been > deprecated since RFC 6648. It mentions some situationw where .test or > ..invalid would seem to be the right things to use, but it doesn't say why > not. It lists a bunch of TLDs tha

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:00 PM Tony Finch wrote: > Paul Vixie wrote: > > On Monday, 15 June 2020 17:58:42 UTC Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > > > > or since domains are cheap, why not buy a new domain, and use that for > the > > > namespace? > > > > that makes internet viral, and private communicatio

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 16 Jun 2020, at 01:18, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Roy Arends writes: > >> The can never be registered. There is no collision. That is the point >> of all of this. > > Then why does your draft say "unlikely" in multiple places rather than > the strength of your wording above: "can never"? I

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Roy Arends writes: > The can never be registered. There is no collision. That is the point > of all of this. Then why does your draft say "unlikely" in multiple places rather than the strength of your wording above: "can never"? -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 6/15/2020 4:30 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: >> On 16 Jun 2020, at 8:12 am, Paul Wouters wrote: >> >> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >>> 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything for any >>> particular purpose. It makes some observations about the administrat

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Paul Vixie wrote: > > > I.e. the proposed use case is already widely deployed and known to be a > > bad idea. > > known by whom, and how? (got URL?) Gosh well I thought this was widely agreed folklore / common sense since the 1990s and I'm not in the habit of collecting links to essays on "why X

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 15 Jun 2020, at 22:51, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Suzanne Woolf writes: > >> 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything >> for any particular purpose. > > No, but it does make the recommendation to use unreserved space. No. This is not unreserved space. This is

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 16 Jun 2020, at 8:12 am, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > >> 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything for any >> particular purpose. It makes some observations about the administration >> of ISO 3166 and its use in the ICANN c

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Monday, 15 June 2020 22:46:17 UTC Tony Finch wrote: > Paul Vixie wrote: > > there are perhaps more than three, and some might not be yet known by > > those who will want them. the reason why some part of the DNS namespace > > should be reserved in the form, "shall never be allocated by IANA", i

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi Mike, > On 14 Jun 2020, at 21:12, Michael StJohns wrote: > > Roy et al - > > Is there a document from ICANN taking a position on the assignment of TLDs > based on ISO3166 assignments? Yes: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-iso-3166-2012-05-09-en From that page: "In 2000, t

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Paul Vixie wrote: > > there are perhaps more than three, and some might not be yet known by those > who will > want them. the reason why some part of the DNS namespace should be reserved > in the > form, "shall never be allocated by IANA", is not because we cannot think of a > good > enough and

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Monday, 15 June 2020 22:00:31 UTC Tony Finch wrote: > Paul Vixie wrote: > > ... > > > > reserving a corner of the namespace for decentralized operations makes > > sense. > There are perhaps three contexts that you might want a private namespace: > > ... there are perhaps more than three, and

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Suzanne Woolf wrote: 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything for any particular purpose. It makes some observations about the administration of ISO 3166 and its use in the ICANN context, and suggests to operators and implementers that the ISO316

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Paul Vixie wrote: > On Monday, 15 June 2020 17:58:42 UTC Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > > or since domains are cheap, why not buy a new domain, and use that for the > > namespace? > > that makes internet viral, and private communications require global > allocations for no necessary reason. the above q

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Suzanne Woolf writes: > 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything > for any particular purpose. No, but it does make the recommendation to use unreserved space. But it "proposes that nay of them can be used by a network or application for private use." [section 5]. Fu

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Dear colleagues, It will be helpful to the chairs in considering the future of this draft if folks could keep a few things in mind as we discuss it. 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything for any particular purpose. It makes some observations about the administrati

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Monday, 15 June 2020 17:58:42 UTC Tim Wicinski wrote: > (no hats here) > > ... > > > > The obvious question is if an organization is willing to use > > example.com.zz, why wouldn't they use zz.example.com with split > > horizon DNS to keep that subtree on their local network? > > or since dom

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:47 AM John Levine wrote: > In article < > cah1iciouffmryorewhhtbqfnnserw3rvups8pzc8cvnehys...@mail.gmail.com> you > write: > >E.g. use an FQDN belonging to you (or your company), so the namespace > would > >be example.com.zz under which your private names are instantiat

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:59 PM Tim Wicinski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 1:48 PM John Levine wrote: > >> In article < >> cah1iciouffmryorewhhtbqfnnserw3rvups8pzc8cvnehys...@mail.gmail.com> you >> write: >> >E.g. use an FQDN belonging to you (or your company), so the namespace >> would >> >

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

(no hats here) On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 1:48 PM John Levine wrote: > In article < > cah1iciouffmryorewhhtbqfnnserw3rvups8pzc8cvnehys...@mail.gmail.com> you > write: > >E.g. use an FQDN belonging to you (or your company), so the namespace > would > >be example.com.zz under which your private name

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

In article you write: >E.g. use an FQDN belonging to you (or your company), so the namespace would >be example.com.zz under which your private names are instantiated. The obvious question is if an organization is willing to use example.com.zz, why wouldn't they use zz.example.com with split hori

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:34 AM Tony Finch wrote: > Tim Wicinski writes: > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-arends-private-use-tld > > I think this is cute / clever, but a very bad idea. > > Experience from IPv4 and IPv6 private use areas shows that there will be > collisions and th

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Tim Wicinski writes: > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-arends-private-use-tld I think this is cute / clever, but a very bad idea. Experience from IPv4 and IPv6 private use areas shows that there will be collisions and they will be painful. The first line of the abstract is wrong. Eve

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Tim Wicinski writes: > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-arends-private-use-tld TLDR: As is, I'm afraid I can't support this draft for adoption. First, this seems an end-run around two other organizations. And second, I think there are potential concerns with how the RSS is expected to

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

In article you write: >you've got a point - why not just include all 43? I think because on any real network, at least 41 of them will not be used, and there's no way to guess which. While I think that these non-ccTLDs are as good a candidate as we're ever going to find for TLDs on which you can

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 6/14/2020 5:53 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Michael StJohns wrote: That said, I'd prefer it if the document selected a few (<=10) codes from these ranges so that filtering may be built into various servers and clients to prevent leakage. Then you would expect DNS libraries

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Michael StJohns wrote: That said, I'd prefer it if the document selected a few (<=10) codes from these ranges so that filtering may be built into various servers and clients to prevent leakage.  Then you would expect DNS libraries and recursive servers to treat the select

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Roy et al - Is there a document from ICANN taking a position on the assignment of TLDs based on  ISO3166 assignments? When Jon was doing this he was adamant about following their lead - rather than having to make political decisions about what was a country.  The main role he had was not the

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

In article <29a6a711-3641-4e9b-bf07-8d9e66056...@nic.br> you write: > >I wonder what would have happened if this RFC was available a time before IDNs >were defined, someone >decided to use .xn and assume xn was only an internal use thing. I suppose we would find out how much broken software looke

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

I wonder what would have happened if this RFC was available a time before IDNs were defined, someone decided to use .xn and assume xn was only an internal use thing. Rubens > On 12 Jun 2020, at 12:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi > On 14 Jun 2020, at 14:59, S Moonesamy wrote: > > Hi Roy, Ed, > At 08:12 AM 12-06-2020, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by >> DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > It is difficult for me to take a pos

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi Roy, Ed, At 08:12 AM 12-06-2020, Tim Wicinski wrote: Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. It is difficult for me to take a position on the adoption of this draft as I don't have enough informa

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

technically ICANN is only really in charge of the gTLD name space as the ccTLD one depends on the ISO 2 letter alpha code elements over which ICANN has no control. I suppose this might make sense as an informational RFC about here's what is likely to happen if you squat on these names that proba

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

John, technically ICANN is only really in charge of the gTLD name space as the ccTLD one depends on the ISO 2 letter alpha code elements over which ICANN has no control. el On 2020-06-14 02:03 , John Levine wrote: > In article <8bf10121-cf4b-4341-bc40-f427a8f4b...@apnic.net> you write: >> This i

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

In article <8bf10121-cf4b-4341-bc40-f427a8f4b...@apnic.net> you write: >This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but the >venue where such >topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I realise that >explicitly opposing such WG >calls for adoption is tantam

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 21:39:05 UTC Geoff Huston wrote: > ... > > I believe that the IETF passed responsibility for the determination of > policy regarding the DNS namespace to what we now call ICANN some decades > ago, and in line with that transfer of role and responsibility such > discussion

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 13 Jun 2020, at 17:39, Geoff Huston wrote: > This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but > the venue where such topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I > realise that explicitly opposing such WG calls for adoption is tantamount to > heresy in t

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Jun 13, 2020, at 17:39, Geoff Huston wrote: > > > I believe that the IETF passed responsibility for the determination of policy > regarding the DNS namespace to what we now call ICANN some decades ago, and > in line with that transfer of role and responsibility such discussions should > ta

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but the venue where such topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I realise that explicitly opposing such WG calls for adoption is tantamount to heresy in today’s IETF, but nevertheless I must record my oppositio

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:13 AM Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular calls for adoptions over the next few months. We are looking for > *explicit* support for adoption. > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for dra

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Tim Wicinski writes: > > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by > DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. Reviwed and yes, this is suitable. It addresses operational problems. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contri

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 12 Jun 2020, at 11:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular calls for adoptions over the next few months. We are looking for > *explicit* support for adoption. > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-arends-priv

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

I support the adoption and will review. Erwin > On 12 Jun 2020, at 17.12, Tim Wicinski wrote: > >  > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular calls for adoptions over the next few months. We are looking for > *explicit* support for ad

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:12 AM Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular calls for adoptions over the next few months. We are looking for > *explicit* support for adoption. > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draf

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

I want to make a disclaimer here for complete transparency: I am the editor of this draft. This draft is my individual submission and does not present an opinion, endorsement or anything like that from ICANN, ICANN affiliate (such as PTI) or the ICANN community. Warmly, Roy Arends > On 12 Ju

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

I support the adoption. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:12 PM Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular calls for adoptions over the next few months. We are looking for > *explicit* support for adoption. > > > This starts a C

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular calls for adoptions over the next few months. We are looking for > *explicit* support for adoption. > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for dra

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

All, As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run regular calls for adoptions over the next few months. We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption. This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-arends-private-use-tld The draft is available here: https://datatr