> On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > >> >>> 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. >> >> I understand that we have different views. However, I am asking you >> specifically to articulate _your_ view. >> >> You have said that in your opinion special-use names must not be published >> in the root zone, but that was already obvious from what you said >> previously. What I am asking you to do is explain _why_ special-use names >> must not be published in the root zone. > > There are other processes for adding names to the root zone. In my opinion, > using the special-use TLD registry as a means of putting a name, even one > that has a different scope and use case, is an end run around that process.
Russ - In my opinion, the special-use domain registry is not being used to put the name in the root zone. The observation is that the special-use definition of this TLD requires both an entry in the special-use domain name registry, and an entry in the root zone. There is no process at present for adding such an entry to the root zone. draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 explicitly recognizes the lack of such a process and that a process may need to be developed. Seems to me the important issue is that the entry in the root zone is required for correct operation of the locally-served .homenet zone, even if no process exists for creating that entry. The appropriate parties can collaborate to develop any needed processes... - Ralph > > Russ > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
