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

On Nov 15, 2013, at 9:23 AM 11/15/13, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:

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

Status in what way?  I don't understand what status needs to be decided or codified.

- Ralph

> 
>   Patrik
> 
> On 15 nov 2013, at 13:55, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> 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 <brian@innovationslab.net> 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 <brian@innovationslab.net>
>>>> To: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "iab@iab.org" <iab@iab.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> dns-dir@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dns-dir mailing list
>>> dns-dir@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dns-dir mailing list
>> dns-dir@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dns-dir mailing list
> dns-dir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir