IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-19

Martin Schanzenbach <mschanzenbach@posteo.de> Thu, 15 December 2022 00:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mschanzenbach@posteo.de>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EC3C14CE29 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:59:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=posteo.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KCu5t_tqq1v4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:59:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout02.posteo.de (mout02.posteo.de [185.67.36.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 975CAC14CE27 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82099240104 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 01:59:33 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1671065973; bh=hJmoFSzWXL5kjVr4TMf8ik0jbu4osf9169HktL1Wu1Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=HGS9gYq1BsKQyIlT3NcRvb1lJE63TLtyBk0phhOiZF7enuwPo/pJo7Txc32mxQIR5 2wnxTa9Ft6X/bYwU+MJX3szceiqcYm+xEHnkqxvTuAjaKPX9xMEWKjb85YBsLgkJWa ozSMORE8Hk2SqTYXXq31wEMrj8PydRJAX8zBb5/SS34Lp0rxiv3HmlZrQp8L7f39Rr JUibZEBQshKpRouqOmmK3kNCxqUZ7cJxx3NuI31KvnIpxYuDkyebCTDx9vILiiC+yE GGaoXsRXzq9tkyP3H7Du1zIGYKTMUPnh7MoK6vL/GQCvtE2jFj+5EDR49zWcUC3rId VIuaGBaaebiHQ==
Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4NXYm32583z6tnc; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 01:59:30 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:59:28 +0000
From: Martin Schanzenbach <mschanzenbach@posteo.de>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20221215005928.ammidwbbol5xekz5@werkbank>
References: <221b69b9-adea-d13a-2976-25bc9464621f@lear.ch> <446E3291-1CEA-4061-A63B-49252371B269@nohats.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <446E3291-1CEA-4061-A63B-49252371B269@nohats.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0DKmKD6iG9YY7T1faA6apOrAW1k>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-19
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:59:41 -0000

On 14.12.22 12:25, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2022, at 11:29, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > We're off in the woods again.  Let's keep these two principles in mind:
> > 
> > The DNS resolution mechanisms are not expected to resolve, let alone secure names ending in .ALT.
> > How other resolution mechanisms secure names is their affair.
> I don’t think people disagree on this.
> 
> 
> >> On 14.12.22 17:13, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >> "bob.foo.alt" still squarely falls into "my" namespace
> >> It is indeed not “yours”. 
> > ... from the perspective of DNS.  Whether it is "yours" or "mine" from the perspective of GNS is a matter for GNS to resolve (for example).
> > 
> I was not talking from the perspective of IETF or DNS. The .alt is the Wild West. Even GNS cannot claim exclusivity of a chunk of it. It is competing with all the other unregulated namespaces.
> 

Then the draft should just say that. And not insinuate that as a dev I
can or should do something about that.

> Martin said he cannot help other alternative namespaces using the same alternative namespace as he is using. I merely confirmed that and recommend that if he is looking for exclusivity, he has to leave the Wild West behind and go to a regulated space and play within the rules set out there to get his exclusive namespace.
> 

If there is an obvious way to do it, the draft could give an example. Whatever you
mean by "go to a regulated space" should be given with clear example.
But as you well know, your wording is simply not without problems (IANA
SU-TLD registry is technically also/still a "regulated space" that would
fall within your wording).

My best interpretation of the sentence is that it low-key defines a fcfs-style 
self-governance of .alt. Which would also be fine, but I have an issue
with the unclear wording (i.e. I should not have interpret what the
meaning of "wholly responsible for dealing with collisions" is).

BR
Martin

> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> > Eliot
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > DNSOP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email