Re: [dnsext] does making names the same NEED protocol changes at all?

Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> Fri, 25 February 2011 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <alex@alex.org.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033E43A69A8 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:47:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vx5AlEg9OkAV for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:47:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.avalus.com (mail.avalus.com [89.16.176.221]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7ECF3A69A7 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:47:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.15] (87-194-71-186.bethere.co.uk [87.194.71.186]) by mail.avalus.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38B57C5641A; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:48:16 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:48:15 +0000
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@icsi.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <6AD400292B2C771C7FE70E8F@Ximines.local>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikECGtJm5WyDnX=s8zTERu89qLbFDebf8R1y4Pa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110216165921.GW96213@shinkuro.com> <3B90ED2E-980D-4B01-889F-447D66D0B58D@insensate.co.uk> <20110216174011.GZ96213@shinkuro.com> <20110218143653.GC84482@bikeshed.isc.org> <20110218151209.GF66684@shinkuro.com> <4D5EEE09.4080405@dougbarton.us> <20110218222950.GL74065@shinkuro.com> <4D5F270F.20401@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <199C7B2B4228461FB024E59A990DB46D@ics.forth.gr> <4D641DB6.4090705@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <20110222205617.GS53815@shinkuro.com> <4D64489B.7020901@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <713D992A-1DB9-4F72-9D18-8E923AD51D8D@icsi.berkeley.edu> <AANLkTikf2ixw7JkxQiRBobv-seYnaYS0E3G8TboosnA=@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1102231029260.27602@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <AANLkTin6-mXBeKC_TzgvWUaCyxKfeZxTK1BQvXtpwuCN@mail.gmail.com> <4CC95816-8225-4CAE-897F-3F13F965BCEE@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1102240953550.5244@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <AANLkTiniVDDZXFOV4WryNN=+hK29rBO8_HTAqw7bK=Nf@mail.gmail.com> <8657EF4A-A08D-46E5-8917-553AE377CAD8@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <AANLkTikHm62x=+xWpSRyERw2cB31yZZhVkTT-90dgFjk@mail.gmail.com> <39EBBA76-22F1-4935-9300-B0078B229793@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <5A100E65-FB09-4556-AA5A-BF9FE0468DDA@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <AANLkTikECGtJm5WyDnX=s8zTERu89qLbFDebf8R1y4Pa@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] does making names the same NEED protocol changes at all?
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:47:27 -0000

--On 24 February 2011 12:17:10 -0500 Phillip Hallam-Baker 
<hallam@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am starting to get a really bad feeling about the resolve the same
> requirement. Is the objective here really to make things work better or
> did the authorities that raised this in ICANN have a rather different
> agenda?

We asked (effectively) that, and reply there came none.

I think there may have been a little naivety involved, and someone rather
hopefully thought a simple "fix in DNS" could make domain names in n
different TLDs (which they thought of as 1 TLD with n different
representations) "work the same". Several hundred messages here plus a
non-trivial I-D just to set out the requirements, suggests that at the very
least, the problem is not as simple as first thought.

I understand what ICANN is wanting to do (particularly since the "one ccTLD
per nation" requirement is long standing), and suggest the answer is "give
up the aliasing requirement or enforce it by contract with your TLDs".

I also think I understand what the registries are trying to do, and suggest
the answer is "enforce this within your business processes" (i.e. make
registration of any of a bundle of identical names block out all further
registrations other than by the same registrant, and let the same
registrant insert NS records etc. for any other domain in the same bundle,
perhaps up to some local policy limit). I can understand why synthesis
might be useful here, but I can also understand why registries don't like
it.

I also think I understand what the rest of the world might want to do, and
my answer is "use CNAME/DNAME", plus possibly synthesis.

However, what we don't yet have is a coherent statement of the problem
(save for the I-D just out which I have yet to read), which means we don't
have coherent explanation of why it is so difficult to solve (and, IMHO, a
bad idea if it requires protocol changes). This is why I should go and read
the I-D.

-- 
Alex Bligh