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

[Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]>]

Let me support Ólafur and add some spices to this:

IETF do have a few RFCs talking about reserved names. Some of the actual strings mentioned are (unfortunately) "only" in appendices and not really in normative parts of RFCs. That have created first of all a gray zone of what status certain strings have.

Secondly, I do not find it being clear what process or rather, evaluation criteria, IETF will use to accept (or not) requests like these. Can it just be ad-hoc?

I do not think that would be very smart, given the discussions about reserved names IGOs request at ICANN. IETF should be lucky they have not discovered IETF have(?) the ability to reserve names.

So, IETF must, quickly(!!!!), understand what criteria are to be used to reserve names.

See Section 2 in SAC-062 <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-062-en.pdf>:

> Recommendation 1: ICANN should work with the wider Internet community, including at least the IAB and the IETF, to identify (1) what strings are appropriate to reserve for private namespace use and (2) what type of private namespace use is appropriate (i.e., at the TLD level only or at any additional lower level).

That is I-D arrived now is...hmm...(un)fortunate...

   Patrik

On 15 nov 2013, at 13:11, Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]> 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