To:
dnsop@cafax.se
CC:
Akira Kato <kato@wide.ad.jp>
From:
Simon Coffey <sicoffey@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:17:32 +0000
In-Reply-To:
<20030225.145950.123560606.kato@wide.ad.jp>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212
Subject:
Re: "local" zones
Akira Kato wrote: >I missed the dead line of the initial submission of an I-D, I'd post it >to the list. I'd post it as a working group draft if applicable after >San Francisco IETF meeting. > >-- Akira Kato > > I was co-author of an I-D that proposed the reservation of a ".pri" TLD that would be the recommended TLD to use on "internal" networks. We chose ".pri"(vate) as we felt is reflected the intended application more accurately than .local, which was confusingly similar to .localhost. I approached ICANN, whose opinion was that they would gladly reserve that TLD if instructed by the IETF/IANA. However, the draft failed to progress - partly because ICANN hadn't reserved the TLD, and partly due to technical argument over whether non-registered domains should ever be encouraged. The authors continue to receive enquiries from folks designing an internal DNS namespace and wishing to use a "standard" TLD, so I still believe there is a need for some standard TLD for use on "private" networks, whether it be ".pri", ".local" or something else... FYI: http://www.kblabs.com/lab/lib/drafts/draft-coffeystrain-privatednstld-00.txt.html - Simon Coffey #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.