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

James Stevens James.Stevens at jrcs.co.uk
Thu Sep 7 10:27:45 UTC 2017

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

This seems a great solution to me, and I totally agree that there are 
times when pragmatism has to triumph over perfection - and this may be 
one of those times.

But I can't help agreeing with Andrew - politics / national pride / 
national status could / might be used to bring lot of pressure to bear 
on those in the firing line should some state, at some point, decide 
that X? was the only TLD that truly represented their national status / 
pride / etc - think N.Korea choosing to rename to Xanadu ;)

However, unlike Andrew, my personal experience tells me that there is no 
doubt there is an issue to be resolved, and the fact that it has been 
the subject of discussion, on so many occasions, suggests I an not alone.

I would also cite the ICANN Name Collision program for the new-GTLDs as 
evidence of a need.

The "correct" solution of buying & renewing some public name space has 
always been an option, and yet it is extremely commonly NOT adopted.

And https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-08.txt puts all 
the meat on those bones, I look forward to the RFC, please CC this 
thread, or me personally, if you remember.

> Some issues are just like the challenges with RFC 1918 IP addresses;
> some are different, at least in part because people care both about
> having domain names that are unique within a particular scope, and
> about which names those are-- short strings, or "words," or IDNs. (IP
> addresses are fixed length and people are usually, although not
> always, indifferent to which numbers they get, aside from concerns of
> routability and aggregatability.)
> ... [snip] ....
> Part of the challenge is that domain names aren't used only in DNS.
> Another part is that the DNS protocol assumes a global or default
> context for resolution, so it's hard to indicate what "local" means.

These two points, when taken together hit a number of crucial issues at 
play here.

I think its also very interesting to bring IDN into the mix, as I'd not 
thought of that.


More information about the dns-operations mailing list