On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Is that something within the realm of ICANN? Perhaps the DNS Tech Day ?
You ask those questions sounding as if ICANN staff had not already done so.
Why not share the data if you have some? This is the list of TLDs affected:
apple. brand TLD
beats. brand TLD
gd. (Grenada)
int. (international orgs - important)
kpn. (dutch telco, 59 registrations)
la. (Laos)
lk. (Sri Lanka)
samsung. brand TLD
storage. gTLD with 589 registrations
vn. (Vietnam)
xn--cg4bki (samsung? only contains 2 registrations)
xn--l1acc (mongolia related? only contains 7 registrations)
xn--mgbai9azgqp6j (??? 0 registrations)
xn--q7ce6a (Laos 0 registrations)
Note this only includes 4 ccTLDs and the 1 international TLD.
The rest of the 14 seems brand/vanity or test/idn domains, and a
small gTLD that might be running in "keep the lights on" mode.
Can ICANN or anyone from Grenada, Laos, Sri Lanka or Vietnam tell us
what is keeping them from moving away from SHA1?
Or perhaps a liaison statement from IETF to ICANN ?
Such a statement would be quite a different action than the threat of making
all the zones under many TLDs go insecure. This thread is about WG adoption of
a draft that would do the latter.
The "threat" (strong hint) was started five years ago with RFC8624.
I'm sure there can be some timeline juggling, but if TLDs still have no
plans to move, will they ever move until forced?
This really does seem to be the tail end of the long tail.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
