Kim, I concur with Joe on this. It would be good practice to tidy up these appendages.
I too would be happy to contribute text as appropriate. Bob > On Nov 11, 2021, at 11:56, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > I like the idea of cleaning this up. > > Choosing nsap.int as an example, I think it would be useful to either update > RFC 1706 to make it clear that the advice in section 6 of that document no > longer applies, and that no reverse mapping for NSAP is provided in the DNS. > I don't think this is a great operational necessity since I imagine the > number of people who expect this to work is approximately zero but it seems > good to be tidy. > > [I'd suggest reclassifying 1706 to historic but that'd also affect the > specification for the NSAP RRType; maybe that's a good idea too, but it seems > outside the scope of what you are trying to achieve, and I don't know how we > would confirm that it's a good idea.] > > Similar comment for other domains where there's similar existing advice. > > Happy to offer actual text if that seems useful. > > > Joe > >> On 11 Nov 2021, at 11:38, Kim Davies <kim.dav...@iana.org> wrote: >> >> Colleagues, >> >> I wanted to draw your attention to an Internet Draft we’ve developed, >> its goal is to formally deprecate a number of historic “.int” >> domains that were designated for Internet infrastructure purposes >> decades ago and appear for all intents and purposes obsolete. After some >> limited consultation on developing the approach so far, it would be >> useful to get some additional eyes on it so we have greater confidence >> there is nothing we’ve missed. >> >> Datatracker link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/ >> >> It’s a short document, but at its heart we’ve identified the >> following domains that are referenced in places but seem to be obsolete: >> >> atma.int, ip4.int, nsap.int, rdi.int, reg.int, tpc.int >> >> Most of these are not delegated in the int zone any longer, but there >> are lingering references to them. >> >> Thanks in advance for any insight, and apologies if you get this message >> in duplicate, >> >> kim >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
