> On Apr 17, 2025, at 11:22 AM, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well there is the cost of setting up and maintaining some sort of registry > which fully documents these special TLDs.* And the layer-9+ bickering over > what does and doesn't go into this registry, who gets to decide, defining the > criteria for adding or removing entries, etc, etc. IMO this isn't an issue > for the IETF. I realise that ship has sailed because of earlier mistakes over > the likes of .onion, .gns and friends. This doesn't mean we should repeat > those mistakes. > > If ICANN or some other body wants to have some sort of registry for its > "special" TLDs, they can go ahead and do that. There's nothing stopping them. > They don't need IETF approval. IMO there's nothing for the IETF to do here - > apart from keeping well away from those toxic swamps. > > * I suppose developers and DNS admins will have costs > writing/maintaining/configuring code to support these special TLDs. A > perceived(?) IETF-approved registry for them will just encourage more of this > unpleasantness. >
Really? IMO if .internal could be added to the locally served zones registry (which already exists) and then our resolver implementors would just add it to their out-of-the-box default configuration, that’s all that needs to be done. https://www.iana.org/assignments/locally-served-dns-zones/locally-served-dns-zones.xhtml DW
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
