It's not sensible to presume the action of an independent
decision-making body. It's sensible to discuss it, but it should only
inform our own process logic, not decide it categorically (I think)
I might share your expectation of the outcome, but I would hesitate to
reject a draft on a supposition
On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 proposes to reserve .internal for
> RFC1918-like domain names. There is clearly a strong demand for that.
> (There is also a strong demand for happy sex, great food, excellent
> wines and diamong rings, but
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 11:21:07AM -0400,
Paul Wouters wrote
a message of 11 lines which said:
> > This way, requests for anything.internal which leaked at the root
> > would receive an insecure denial of existence (since there is no
> > DS for .internal). Problem solved, no?
>
> Wouldn't tha
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
This way, requests for anything.internal which leaked at the root
would receive an insecure denial of existence (since there is no DS
for .internal). Problem solved, no?
Wouldn't that be a secure denial of existence?
AFAIK, the root isn't using N
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:32:39PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 57 lines which said:
> draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 proposes to reserve .internal for
> RFC1918-like domain names.
And I forgot to say that it could be a good idea to add a reference to
draft-lewis-user-assign
On 7 Sep 2017, at 7:32, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
The document clearly documents that it will not happen, since it
requires an entire new process at ICANN.
That is a non sequitur. ICANN regularly creates new processes at the
request of its communities.
--Paul Hoffman, not speaking for ICAN
draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 proposes to reserve .internal for
RFC1918-like domain names. There is clearly a strong demand for that.
(There is also a strong demand for happy sex, great food, excellent
wines and diamong rings, but let's ignore it for the moment).
The document clearly documents t
