Ted: >> I have a big problem with Section 6 of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03. If the >> domain name is to be published in the root zone, then I do not think that >> the special-use TLD registration is appropriate. That said, if the >> requirement for publication in the root zone is removed, I do not have a >> problem with proceeding with a special-use TLD registration. > > You seem to have missed out on the discussion that we had on this, Russ. > The problem is that we don't have a choice. Either it is a special-use > name, which means literally that, or it is not. It can't not be a > special-use name, because its use is special—that is, different than other > names. > > At the same time, it is a name that is resolved using the DNS protocol. Its > special use requires this. I think we go into that in the document, but to > recap, if there is no un-signed delegation, validating resolvers will find > any subdomain of the name invalid, and so the special use won't work. > > We could of course require resolvers to special-case this particular domain, > but I think you can see that that sort of solution doesn't scale, so I > presume you are not suggesting we do this. > > So, with that in mind, can you articulate _why_ you think that the > publication in the root zone and the special use registration are together, > as you put it, "inappropriate”?
We have a different view of the intended purpose of the special-use TLD registry. Sadly, the RFC does not include language that resolves this difference. In my opinion, a special-use TLD MUST NOT be published in the root zone. If you believe that this TLD needs to be published in the root zone, then the special-use registry is an inappropriate path to getting the domain name assigned. Russ
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
