Re: [dns-dir] Draft requesting reservation of special-use domain names

[Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]>]

More specifically, I think IETF must really fast make up their mind on what the status of Appendix G of RFC 6762 is.

   Patrik

On 15 nov 2013, at 13:55, Mark Townsley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> I'll add that there are some discussions occurring at the IAB and ICANN level about reserving .home as a more widely scoped .local for use in homenet. What happens there will help set precedent for what the IETF does for other use cases. 
> 
> A couple of differences with .home is that we do have an IETF effort to match it up to, and we can show that it's already being used in a similar vein as we want to use it. It's also the top most leaked tld to the DNS system, so marking it special-use actually helps as it then becomes best-practice to block it. The sticky ICANN part plays in due to 5 entities already making an application to ICANN for .home with real money. ICANNs balance sheet these days can likely afford losing a few hundred $K here and there though, and it might be wrong for them to approve this domain to anyone given how widely it has already been camped on.
> 
> I'd let .home play out a bit longer and learn from it before making any material response at all to the other.
> 
> - Mark
> 
> On Nov 15, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Brian, welcome to the world of alternate roots, you will never be the same. 
>> 
>> My first thought was "Is this a joke ? " but that is too harsh.
>> 
>> Reserving a TLD name for special purpose that has nothing to do with IETF protocols, with no documentation on how to implement this
>> stuff, and a single implementation is a stretch. 
>> 
>> I know this is harsh standard but TLD's live on the boundary of IETF and ICANN, by reserving a 5 TLD's we are depriving ICANN of almost 1M$ in possible revenue. 
>> 
>> Fundamental question that needs to be asked is: 
>> Can a Non-DNS namespace look like a DNS namespace and share same tools to great extent? 
>> 
>> Personally I think a Non-DNS namespace should start with a prefix and a separator, not end with a postfix, 
>> 	i.e. GNU#foo.bar. instead of foo.bar.gnu 
>>      and when people want DNS I see no harm in having DNS#foo.bar. 
>> with a prefix we can teach tools once for all to detect non-DNS namespaces, and do the right thing (over time) 
>> 
>> As in the case of they .gnu et.al postfixes these queries will leak into the DNS system thus we need to ask:
>> 	 Do we need AS112 servers to dampen the impact? 
>>        Does leaking the queries to DNS constitute a security risk for the participants? 
>> 
>> Strictly speaking as none of the protocols are IETF ones, granting these registrations will set a horrible precedent 
>> and we will have to deal with lots more of these as possible ICANN tld application end-run. 
>> 
>> IETF has limited experience with alternate namespaces and it is a minefield of easy mistakes
>> Not a review, just high level questions and issues to be aware off. 
>> 
>> Intarea wg IMHO is a bad home for this, as I do not think any DNS people are there.
>> 
>> Patrik and possibly others are at the ICANN meeting in Argentina next week and they can offer more input on how 
>> the impact of something like this there. 
>> 
>> 	Olafur
>> 
>> On Nov 15, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Any feedback from the DNS Directorate would be appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Draft requesting reservation of special-use domain names
>>> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:35:25 -0500
>>> From: Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>
>>> To: IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>> 
>>> All,
>>>   Ted and I received a request asking for assistance with the
>>> publication of a draft reserving several special-use domain names under
>>> the rules defined in RFC 6761.
>>> 
>>>   draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names puts forth a request to
>>> reserve 5 special-use domain names.  I have indicated to the authors
>>> that I would take a look at the draft and help determine a path forward.
>>> As much as I abhor AD-sponsored documents, this one does seem like a
>>> reasonable candidate.  I may also consider running it through the
>>> intarea WG.  I would be most interested in any policy issues that people
>>> may see with this request and any DNS-related concerns with such a
>>> reservation.
>>> 
>>>   Fire away!
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dns-dir mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dns-dir mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dns-dir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir