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

[Jeff Schmidt]

>> 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. 

I don't disagree with that argument, however I also am concerned that 42 equal options will be debilitating for your average operator (the primary problem and thus the primary market).  The way the draft is written now it doesn't seem to provide the "answer" we need.

Could we have our cake and eat it too with something like:
"Any of the specific ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 user-assigned codes MAY be used by a network or application for private use.  Absent specific circumstances, requirements, or preferences necessitating a different selection, .ZZ SHOULD be used.  The "private DNS namespaces" listed in RFC 6762 Appendix G (.intranet., .internal., .private., .corp., .home., .lan.) SHOULD NOT be used."

(Yes, I think clarifying the mess 6762 made with any new RFC is important)

Jeff