Hi Suzanne - > HOME/CORP/MAIL (draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02): > > * This is the most controversial of the RFC 6761 drafts and the one most > driven by policy concerns
It is not driven by policy concerns; it is driven by operational concerns, and I have heard almost no one in the WG discussion argue that these three names should *not* be withdrawn/reserved (and I say "almost" just to be safe, as I haven't checked thoroughly enough to omit it). > * The draft assumes that these names are commonly being used in local DNS > contexts and often “leak” into the public internet. Specific uses are not > documented. The draft does not "assume" this, it "recognizes" or "observes" it. "Assumes" suggests that the authors of the draft weren't really sure about the local-context usage of these names, and so just "assumed" that it was was a problem. Specific uses are of course documented in great detail in the name collision study report (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-02aug13-en.pdf), which is 197 pages long and presumably would not be welcome as a cut-and-paste addition to a document intended only to follow the rules established by RFC 6761 for adding names to the special-use names register. > * The most commonly used justification for this reservation was the risk of > name collision if ICANN delegates these names in the production root zone. More specifically, with respect to why this matters to the IETF, the justification was the risk of operational instability when names that were chosen to anchor local domain name trees precisely because they "will never resolve in the global DNS" are actually resolved by the global DNS. > * Since ICANN has said that they’re not currently planning to delegate these > names, the justification further seems to assume that ICANN’s assurance of > this is not a sound basis for believing that risk is contained ICANN's decision is in the realm of policy. It is in no way disrespectful of ICANN to say that a policy decision to withhold "for now" the delegation of specific names is not the same as an operational stability decision to permanently reserve those names for local ("special") use. > * There were questions about how to quantify name collision risk, or > otherwise set a threshold for what operational characteristics of the > appearance of a given name in the public internet would justify a conclusion > that it should be “protected” by the IETF from delegation in the production > root zone That's not what our draft was about. Our draft was about following the rules duly established by RFC 6761 to add 3 specific strings to the special-use names registry. Full stop. - Lyman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
