Special-Use Domain Names

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Tim Polk) Discuss

Discuss (2011-02-16 for -)
I expected the document to seed the registry with entries (at a minimum) for the special domain names identified in the introduction:

   Analogous to Special-Use IPv4 Addresses [RFC5735], DNS has its own
   concept of reserved names, such as "example.com", "example.net", and
   "example.org", or any name falling under the top level pseudo-domain
   "invalid" [RFC2606].

Without those entries (or a plan to create those entries), I don't quite see that this document accomplishes anything.
Comment (2011-02-16 for -)
No email
send info
last sentence of section 2: "reservation of a Special-Use Domain Names" - s/Names/Name/

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Russ Housley) Yes

(Robert Sparks) Yes

Comment (2011-02-15 for -)
No email
send info
Thanks for this effort - I expect this registry (as long as its registration policy is Standards Action) to be a very useful tool.

Will you be updating draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns to explicitly request registration of .local (pointing to section 23 of that draft?)

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-14 for -)
No email
send info
I agree with a comment that this document should register existing special names in the registry, or make a more compelling argument about why the registry is needed.

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-14 for -)
No email
send info
Although I do not object to publication of this document, I agree that it would be preferable for this document to seed the registry with initial registrations.

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection