Re: [dnsext] we need help to make names the same, was draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Fri, 18 February 2011 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 C612C3A6EC8 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:45:59 -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=[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 wQzA7pFinPiN for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:45:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63DF13A6D6F for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:45:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 19330 invoked by uid 399); 18 Feb 2011 23:46:31 -0000
Received: from router.ka9q.net (HELO doug-optiplex.ka9q.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@75.60.237.91) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with ESMTPAM; 18 Feb 2011 23:46:31 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 75.60.237.91
X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us
Message-ID: <4D5F04D5.7000901@dougbarton.us>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:46:29 -0800
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20110129 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <20110216073338.7251.qmail@joyce.lan> <F21692535B1A478F95D9E3AA048E8037@ics.forth.gr> <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> <4D5EF74C.9080603@dougbarton.us> <20110218230905.GN74065@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110218230905.GN74065@shinkuro.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dnsext] we need help to make names the same, was draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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, 18 Feb 2011 23:45:59 -0000

On 02/18/2011 15:09, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:48:44PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Sure, that's possible. But I think it's very, very unlikely. As I said
>> in my previous post registries today are giving registrants the option
>> of whether to delegate the variants, I don't see this changing if we
>> give them a new tool to use.
>
> I've asked before, and I'll ask again now: what do you mean by
> "registries"?  Remember that we are _not_ talking only about the top
> level.

Define "top." :)  If you're talking about organizations registering new 
Top Level Domains with ICANN then the behavior regarding variants will 
be defined by mutual agreement so we don't have to worry there. If 
you're talking about how the TLD registries handle this issue with their 
registrants this behavior will also be defined in advance so the 
registrant will know what they are getting themselves into.

> It is certainly true that the commercial environment today
> concentrates most of the commercial relationships and delegations at
> the top level, and it is also true that most delegations below the top
> level are friendly and co-operative.
>
> But I'm simply not willing to say, glibly, "The future will resemble
> the past," in this area.  For instance, we are today in a commercial
> environment where the scope for expansion of the top level is very
> large, and there is little reason to believe that all of those new
> operators are going to do exactly the same thing as everyone else
> already has been doing.  We need to design this protocol change for
> cases we can plausibly imagine, not just what we happen to have seen.

The key word there being "plausibly." I don't foresee a scenario where 
TLD registries will "force" activating variants (whether by delegation, 
or some other solution we provide) on their registrants without warning.


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/