Toerless,
Most of your comments are not IETF business; the whole point of this long
overdue action is to remove any remaining bit of IETF business from .int,
so that we can forget about it and leave all the metaphysics to ICANN.
I fully support both this draft and the accompanying deprecation of
RFC1706 and RFC1528. Time to move on.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 20-Oct-22 11:33, Toerless Eckert wrote:
a) Why does the draft say
"intergovernmental organizations, which are organizations established by
international treaties between or among national governments
when rfc1591 says:
"organizations established by international treaties, (or international databases)"
This seems to be an intentional different/refined wording. Why ?
For example there are laws for treaties between international organiations,
aka: another layer of indirection, which in my reading would be covered by
rfc1591 but not the draft wording.
b) If we are going to want to refine the future use of .int (because
we want to be crisp about the purpose before passing it on to some operating
registry):
Would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations be able to
get a .int domain ? The way i read wikipedia, there is no treaty involved,
but it is an association and formalized through a declaration
and later a statue. Or does this rightfully not deserve a .int domain
because it does not have the right (treaty) paperwork (and the DNS has the wrong
order for the brits anyhow ;-) ?
Aka: if we have the freedom to make .int more useful maybe rethink / broaden
it permitted use with cases like this considered.
IMHO: as broad as possible in the original spirit while still effectively prohibiting FCFS land grabs.
Maybe something like international organizations established by national governments or their international organizations.
c) "The documented uses of infrastructural identifiers in the "int"
domain were largely experimental and in practice obsolete."
... and are now in practice ...
d) I suggest to replace the security considerations of
"The operator of the "int" domain should be cautious about any potential
re-use of these domains for intergovernmental treaty organizations"
with explicit text earlier, that these domain names must never be re-used
and maybe even instructions how to populate them with some appropriate NULL RR
(not sure what the best RR would be).
Halloween horror story of the day: ITU gets ipv4.int and ipv6.int and uses it
for a new international database how to filter Internet traffic. Just saying.
Look up the EU presidents history of Internet filtering proposals...
Note: It would be nice if ITU gets tpc.int and populates it with
the some official E164 database, but neither does ITU have this type of humor,
nor does domain availability change the business model that makes DNS
not desired for E164 space... unfortunately... i think).
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 05:34:40PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2022-11-23. Exceptionally, comments
> may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> Abstract
> The document marks as historic any "int" domain names that were
> designated for infrastructure purposes, and identifies them for removal
> from the "int" top-level domain. Any implementation that involves
> these domains should be considered deprecated. This document also
> marks RFC 1528 and RFC 1706 as historic.
So, I understand that none of our infrastructure has been in .int for some
years (decades even).
The document says:
In conjunction with this change, the eligibility for "int" domains was
limited to only intergovernmental treaty organizations.
I think that, after approval, that this use for int will remain, and the
management of it will fall to, I guess, ICANN, as yet another TLD?
At first reading, it seemed like we were removing int entirely, but upon more
careful reading, I see that we are just removing our infrastructure
delegations.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
