[dns-operations] TLD(s) for private use

[Warren Kumari]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic.fr> wrote:
> Funny, we just had a long discussion in an IETF working group about
> that :-)
>

... and just for completeness,  it is this document:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

Basically, it would be asking for .internal to be reserved for RFC1918
type usage, with the full understanding that if will have the same
types of issues that RFC1918 has -- as pointed out below, it wouldn't
be unique (duh) and so if multiple organizations using it were to
merge you'll get collisions, etc.

Note that this might be a horrendous idea, but people have been asking
for something like this for years, and simply squatting on strings
(.home, .corp, .mail, .network, .server, etc) because they don't have
a safe place to do $whatever.

W


> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:28:23AM +0100,
>  James Stevens <James.Stevens at jrcs.co.uk> wrote
>  a message of 26 lines which said:
>
>> Apart from those in RFC-6761, is there any TLD, or format of TLD,
>> that can be used for private use that is guaranteed never to be
>> allocated?
>
> No. (Or, to be careful, "not yet".)
>
>> I'm guessing dot-ZZ might fit that criterion, on the basis no country will
>> ever get it,
>
> I wouldn't be so sure, ISO 3166 does not reserve that code in any way.
>
>> Or is the correct procedure to be using something like
>> "data.invalid."?
>
> No, the "correct" (or at least recommended) procedure is to use a
> subdomain of one of your domains. (If you are example.com, use
> priv.example.com.) One of the reasons for this recommendation is the
> need for uniqueness (think merging and acquisition, and the problems
> of people who had to merge RFC-1918 networks.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
> dns-operations mailing list
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf