Subject: Re: [[email-masked]: Information about use of infrastructure domains]

From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:23:29 -0400

Maybe I'm missing something but I fail to see the rationalization
for using .arpa instead of .int. I see hand-waving.

Would this have anythiung to do with .INT recently being handed over to
the ITU and .ARPA being safely controlled "here" ?

I realize this is off topic for this group and accept that
criticism without it being given.

This doesn't feel right though.

http://www.newdom.com/postelwarning.html

At 09:38 AM 5/18/00 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
>This also came during some mailing list setup procedures. It was sent
>to the URN list and CC-ed to the CNRP list.
>
>----- Forwarded message from Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]> -----
>
>X-Sender: [email-masked]
>Date:         Sun, 14 May 2000 20:52:56 +0200
>Reply-To: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
>From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
>Subject:      Information about use of infrastructure domains
>To: [email-masked]
>
>Dear URN WG:
>
>Over the last few months, the IAB has been discussing possible
>complications stemming from the use of the ".INT" TLD as a location
>for Internet infrastructure domains. The result of those discussions
>was a recommendation to the IESG that infrastructure domains be
>placed in ".ARPA" rather than in ".INT" where feasible. See
>http://www.iab.org/iab/statement-on-infrastructure-domains.txt for
>the full recommendation.
>
>Based on the IAB recommendation, the IESG requests that the WG make
>such a change. That is, The IESG recommends that the urn.net and
>uri.net be placed under the ".ARPA" TLD.
>
>For the IESG,
>Patrik
>
>P.S. CNRP wg is added as cc on this message, as URN resolution
>mechanisms are discussed on your mailing list
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>Michael Mealling        |      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
>Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
>Network Solutions       |          www.lp.org          |  [email-masked]
>

--          http://www.hungersite.org/cgi-bin/donate.pl
Richard Sexton  |  [email-masked]  |  RS79 on eBay and InterNIC
http://vrx.net/richard  |  [email-masked]  |  +1 (613) 473-1719
Snail mail: "Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, K0K 1Y0"

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 16:57:32 +0200

>for using .arpa instead of .int. I see hand-waving.

The idea is that all "protocol related issues" should be in one
domain, and that INT should not be a kitchen-sink for domains which
we don't know what to do with. INT should be used for international
treaty organizations, regardless of who is administrating it.

The choice was between creating a new TLD, or using something which
exists. As ARPA only is used for IN-ADDR, and that is a typical
protocol domain, more "stuff" can be put there.

Example, IN-ADDR is for ipv4 inverse mappings. Should ipv6 stuff be
in int, or in arpa? I think it is not a bad idea having all stuff in
arpa, i.e. in the same domain and has been in favor of this proposal
from day one it has been discussed.

    Patrik

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:06:56 -0400

Well, you're right that it's not at all a topic for this list,
but in the hopes that a few messages here will answer any major
questions...

> criticism without it being given.

The basic rationale is that it's best to have one place to manage
and maintain DNS-based infrastructure.  Right now, we (the IETF)
have caused things to appear in at least

        .arpa (in-addr.arpa)
        .net (URN/URI NAPTR resolution)
        .int (a number of things)

I haven't been directly involved in discussions re. .int and ITU,
but I gather that whatever their intentions for the TLD, it's
not clear that what we have done/are likely to do would fit in
with their perspective.

So, the recommendation is to stop putting stuff there, and preferrably
migrate stuff out as is possible.  We could look at .net as a landing
spot, but it's pretty occupied with commercial activity, so .arpa
seemed a logical choice.

Given that the protocol elements in question are typically
static or IANA-managed (e.g., the URN.NET stuff), I don't really
see it as being strange, or otherwise problematic, if we put them
in a place that is specifically designated as protocol-infrastructure
and is IANA-managed.

My own involvement has been as an IAB member during the discussions,
and as chair of the URN WG which produced the URN/URI resolution
documents putting stuff in URN.NET and URI.NET.  It made sense
to me as housecleaning.

Leslie.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"My body obeys Aristotelian laws of physics."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------