[NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Top-level Domains for Private Internets IETF draft

[David Conrad]

Jeff,

On Jun 18, 2020, at 9:36 AM, Jeff Schmidt via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss at icann.org> wrote:
> The reason we have this problem is we (collectively, the technical community) have done a poor job communicating the “right” way to use private DNS namespaces.  We did a good job with 1918/IP; we did a bad job with DNS.  So, folks made it up themselves, and now we’re here.

Having been part of the discussions that led up to RFC 1918, it feels like we’re having the same discussions, just 25 years later and with a different resource.  What led up to RFC 1918 was a pretty high calorie food fight (IMHO)...

> Marketers will tell you “meet your customers where they are.”  People expect this to be in a simple and clear RFC, just like 1918.  Tell me what to do and I’ll do it.  If we want to actually solve the problem, it should be a simple and clear RFC.  People will follow that.  Debating the correct policy forum for communicating this for literally years and then burying it in some obscure ICANN or GNSO document (organizations exactly no one outside of our community have actually heard of) won’t solve the problem for the masses.

It might be an interesting question as to which venue (IETF or ICANN) has greater reach, however I don’t believe it is either/or, nor do I believe that was the intent of Roy or Ed to pick one over the other. I believe Roy posted into the IETF because that, at least traditionally, has been where DNS operational discussions were held. Indeed, Roy has already agreed to discuss the Internet Draft during the ICANN 68 Tech Day and there was a lively discussion in the IETF DNSOP working group.  

However, as opposed to the IETF, there isn’t (at least in my mind) a clear venue in ICANN in which to publish ideas for discussion/debate. I had asked Jeff Neuman and would ask you and others: where/how should Roy and Ed publish his idea in the ICANN Community to generate discussion?

> In Section 5, instead of “This document does not recommend any specific ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 user-assigned code as a private use, but instead [offers 12 pages of dense technobabble no one will care about]” it should say “Use .ZZ”  Just like 1918.

As mentioned privately, RFC 1918 presented 3 options in terms of private use prefixes.  Roy's and Ed’s draft makes use of a third party (ISO 3166) to make the definition of a set of domains that can be used for private use Someone Else’s Problem.  That Someone Else has already selected a set of domains (42 of them). I personally don’t think the bike shedding that will result in trying to select one of those 42 for the officially sanctioned “private use” domain will come to a consensus and don’t really see the point in trying. 

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200618/39f8242a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200618/39f8242a/smime.p7s>