Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8751A0171 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:43:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N95OQ0tfgTOW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE5A1A0108 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C55F1B82C6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5905A190043; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nat64.meeting.ietf.org (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:43:35 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1403031329540.18502@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:43:30 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BDE4E26A-0D61-4DDE-B2E2-031A02E2BA96@nominum.com>
References: <20140129055438.2402.qmail@joyce.lan> <97E20887-2B9C-4EAD-826B-043306605F88@fl1ger.de> <54BE75D7-E70B-46AB-93C1-042E655BB5E7@apple.com> <D0AC0015-63C3-4C03-A8D0-888C435D2775@virtualized.org> <20140226100311.E73CA1069B39@rock.dv.isc.org> <8FEAF0FC-2AC3-4F39-9825-7068AAA6E40D@hopcount.ca> <CAHw9_iJa_OhzHVCQ4L0Aj+m=zAp6w=mJpAV-_ueh9iukhb3bnA@mail.gmail.com> <20140303102535.6f276963@quill> <531450A1.8010507@bogus.com> <917146C3-BC38-4D10-AA14-C3B7A02B1193@hopcount.ca> <2C463623-6483-45E2-B299-75BF7C8A1A3B@nominum.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1403031329540.18502@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0-JYmtmrB1umampT9-FEQN0ySHQ
Cc: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:43:39 -0000

On Mar 3, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>; wrote:
> As well as Joe's AS112 argument there is also the question of DNSSEC
> validation - but perhaps we don't want non-DNS names to make any kind of
> sense in this respect... cf. .local

Indeed, it doesn't make much sense to me that special-use names that are not intended to be resolved using the DNS should be validateable via DNSSEC.   If they can be validated, it would have to be using whatever protocol is being used for name resolution (if any).