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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Olafur,
     Thanks for the input.  I had mentioned intarea as one possiblity
(with the hope that I could drag a few DNS folks into the discussion :)
).  Right now, the only process we have for reviewing these requests is
RFC 6761, which does not have as high a bar as what you described below.
 My main concern is that the draft does mention a goal of allowing p2p
apps to interact with DNS-based applications but, as you point out, does
not describe any of those mechanisms.

     I will definitely keep your points in mind as this document is
reviewed.

Regards,
Brian

On 11/15/13 11:11 AM, 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