Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

هذا المحتوى متوفر فقط باللغة (أو اللغات)

  • English

Name: Toerless Eckert
Date: 27 Feb 2024
Affiliation: Futurewei Technologies
Other Comments

SAC113 makes a range of claims against the use and benefits of the intended "internal" TLD that have implications on the necessary or preferable configuration of DNS components and/or even their implementation for them to become true. For example filtering of .internal requests towards public DNS servers even if not configured to avoid loading up public DNS with requests for "internal" as it currently exists for all those SAC113 listed private TLDs.

I am not enough an expert to judge whether the DNS engineering community would agree on all the details written (and promised) in the SAC113 or if they would consider them sufficient to ensure best possible operation of this TLD in a supposedly large number of (private) domains.

I would therefore appreciate if ICANN personal would work in IETF to produce an RFC (ideally a BCP if not standard) outlining the operational recommendations and benefits of this new and ?somewhat? special TLD. Parts of SAC113 may be a good start. DNSOP may be an appropriate IETF WG.

Having an IETF BCP RFC around the use of this TLD would give a lot more confidence to operators than the claims/suggestions made in SAC113 alone. Even if parts of the contain may already exist spread out over various other DNS related RFCs.

I think .internal should only be made fully available for use when such an RFC exist (and has hence been reviewed/approved by IETF).

Summary of Submission

I would like to see a BCP RFC on the use of the "internal" TLD, and ICANN should not finalize availability of the TLD unless that RFC exists.