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

Brian - focusing first on the IANA registry requirements...
On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:19 AM 11/15/13, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:

> 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.

The IANA "Special-Use Domain Names" registry defines the registration procedures as "Standards Action and IESG Approval". So, the document must be a standards track document (rather than "IESG Approval".

> 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.

Yeah ... I'm trying to understand why a p2p app would use existing resolution APIs that have been modified to accept names that adhere to the DNS syntax but are resolved outside the DNS resolution system.

- Ralph

>     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 <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