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

[David Conrad]

On Sep 6, 2017, 10:35 PM +0530, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>, wrote:

> there is no need for people go to stomping about on some
> supposedly shared "private" space. If you can do
> foo.dns-oarc.net.internal, you can just as easily do
> internal.foo.dns-oarc.net. The analogy with RFC1918 address space is
> just a hammer looking for nails.

While technically, you may be correct, it is frequently disappointing that a non-trivial number of people aren’t particularly interested in technical correctness.  Paul Vixie, long ago, coined the term “dot envy” to describe the interest to limit the number of labels one had to associate with a name and it remains as valid today as it did back in the mid-90s.  Even if it is silly.

I’d point to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-user-assigned-tlds-00 as a pragmatic solution.

ICANN has, I believe, gone on record to state that 2-letter TLDs are reserved for assignment according to ISO-3166.  Since ISO-3166 had, at one time, designated a number of 2-letter codes as “user assigned”, it seems wildly unlikely that those codes would subsequently be used for country codes.  Since ICANN has indicated they will not assign 2-letter TLDs that do not correspond to ISO-3166 country codes, they would appear to be safe for “private use.”

It would be nice if we could simply agree that, for folks who want private-use TLDs, they could simply use the “user assigned” ISO-3166 codes.  It is simple, pragmatic, and would allow everyone to move on.

However world peace would also be nice.

Regards,
-drc
(Speaking for myself only. Really. No, really. Stop looking at me that way!)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20170906/4425ce59/attachment.html>