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

James Stevens James.Stevens at jrcs.co.uk
Fri Sep 8 10:05:51 UTC 2017

On 08/09/17 02:31, John Levine wrote:
 > On the assumption that "no, you don't want a local TLD and I will
 > explain the arcane reasons why not" isn't persuasive, which in my
 > experience it isn't

+100 (probably more)

On 08/09/17 05:48, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
 > Therefore, IMHO the safest bet is to stick to subdomains of
 > ".invalid", if dot-envy is an issue, otherwise register a domain and
 > put the names in question under a 2ld or 3ld.

1) in most situations, people would not like that computers to be called 
<somthing>.invalid. - so they simply don't use it - this option has been 
around for some time.

2) I'm not keen on the phrase "dot envy" as it makes this seem 
irrational, which its not.

the "correct" solution is to register a name - probably at least 7 or 8 
characters long by now, add a "private" or "prv" prefix, then add the 
department & host name, so


And now support a bunch of users trying to get that right every time - 
this is why people go for TLD squatting instead - "printer.sales"

Not so much envy as laziness - in addition you have to pay an annual fee 
for the privilege of the solution you don't like just because its "correct".

Not to mention forgetting to renew - probably the single most common 
support issue with domain names.

I think its also important to think outside the "large US corporate" box 
and think about (say) a 6 to 10 PC business in any developing nation for 
whom paying $8 to $10 per year to be "correct" is out of the question.

On 08/09/17 05:48, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
 > Perhaps someone wants to publish and progress a draft that reserves
 > some particular "??--" prefix specifically for private use TLDs.
 > In*that*  case squatting on names for that prefix might be ok.
 > How about "pr--" for "private" or "public relations", whichever
 > you prefer.

Which brings us full circle to my original proposal, which was to 
reserve the "zz--", prefix - although "z?--" might reduce even further 
the likely hood of collision.

"x?--" is not a bad idea, but slightly tainted by the fact that "xn--" 
is already in use, so the universality of "X?-- means private" would be 
lost, and I see some benefit in that.

However, as Suzanne pointed out, there REALLY should also be support for 
IDN in this unregistered space

On 07/09/17 16:35, Jim Reid wrote:
 > Right. And I think there's next to no chance of any standards- or
 > policy-making body saying some string/prefix/TLD will ever be "safe"
 > to use for these sorts of situations.

You may well be right - but it will never be my job to clean up the mess 
left by the mass of TLD squatting lack of action has caused, and it will 
never be my name future engineers curse for not taking action when given 
the chance.

So I'm just an innocent by-stander pointing at the emperor.


More information about the dns-operations mailing list