Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-15.txt

"Schanzenbach, Martin" <mschanzenbach@posteo.de> Sat, 23 July 2022 11:36 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 CA822C13C22F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 04:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 Hu8Wd0x0SnuO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 04:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout01.posteo.de (mout01.posteo.de [185.67.36.65]) (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 AC22AC13C22D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 04:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E89E3240026 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 13:35:52 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1658576152; bh=Lv5mSA2zWEjWpfjTpOIDnhs1/bOu16fqtcs+pIHNOEI=; h=Subject:From:Date:Cc:To:From; b=LXpfV+EBReqwVjxIWjJd+GljW0z684UZmXEuzlTaMCFIzolNEiN43bakDrjacoStD 7AzeK0xKatLNy7CFr7ZObuJ1HrTNoLwL1DYvG1CkjdnjfnNW73QMEK1ImNTSkG896s X8dzVEJTlbo6JcIyBwdJuiOiApTGP3wMT7Vxcut4/hl25z2YdGu+iLL4I1y6Ms4TC8 UjiQ7RVZ+1Y5NTxn3uH244RHT5YKsNnoQGrk74VhRRLcUwtu00dmN5CELQ82dfiaEM QlTQDukObmnDp1oSNHwj/D5vRYVSu5N5HoqdsnapL2jrCWSJJoSeZxCD+6Y6lojjsA VdEinEcFnH0/g==
Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4LqklC17kjz9rxX; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 13:35:51 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8C12F6A3-9EDF-449D-823C-B2562AC248B7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
From: "Schanzenbach, Martin" <mschanzenbach@posteo.de>
In-Reply-To: <2699d4a1-820b-05fe-502e-238a9a8c9db0@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 11:35:46 +0000
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-Id: <E2A24DFF-923F-4C08-8C26-168966953295@posteo.de>
References: <165519310959.42189.8914153387540910631@ietfa.amsl.com> <2699d4a1-820b-05fe-502e-238a9a8c9db0@nthpermutation.com>
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1kr7cDICSNDFz3_UUnipMlHjwe0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-15.txt
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: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 11:36:00 -0000

Hi,

FWIW our draft [1] which is currently in IESG conflict review is related to this "issue".
Namely, the question of namespace ambiguity is discussed in it [2] as we were unable to register a Special-Use TLD in the past [3] (as some of you may remember).
There already have been discussions with the ISE regarding this property as well.
We currently see three options for our draft:

1. Leave it as is since it is an "informational" document and describes the current implementation, possibly leading to a negative conflict review response (?).
2. Use a special-use TLD (which would need to be requested again as per RFC 6761 with uncertain outcome).
3. Use this approach although I am not particularly happy with the lack of a registry for the labels beneath ALT and the resulting length of the names.

To me, the purpose of this draft is a bit unclear if RFC6761 exists and can be followed and (at least in theory) we could just have special-use TLDs for alternative name systems (see 2.).

OTOH, although possibly a bit of sacrilege here, maybe it is also a chance to think about a "DNS-NG".
New alternative name systems may be specified and tested without a hard requirement on sub-namespaces, but a soft-requirement for namespace unambiguity within their deployments.
Because possibly/eventually they may be able to replace the current DNS and resolve its names.
For our draft, the question is if a special TLD must/should be specified along with the protocol specification or if we can just discuss namespace ambiguity and possibly use a "temporary" deployment and testing namespace (e.g. "gns.alt" or "whatever you want but beware the DNS dragons").

BR
Martin

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schanzen-gns/
[2] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schanzen-gns-19.html#name-namespace-ambiguity
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-04

> On 27. Jun 2022, at 22:29, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:
> 
> It's either time to put a stake through the heart of this DNS vampire that rises from the grave every 6 months, or to push it for publication.  Given that in 8 years it has yet to gain enough traction for publication, perhaps we de-adopt the draft back into the caring hands of its author?  E.g. - back to draft-kumari-something.  Or contribute to some flowers for a final burial?
> 
> In any event, having looked at this for the first time thanks to the announcement, and reading the proposed use, why isn't this reserving something like "%ALT" or some other string containing an illegal DNS character?
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> 
> On 6/14/2022 3:51 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
>> 
>>         Title           : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
>>         Author          : Warren Kumari
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-15.txt
>> 	Pages           : 11
>> 	Date            : 2022-06-14
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>    This document reserves a string (ALT) to be used as a TLD label in
>>    non-DNS contexts.  It also provides advice and guidance to developers
>>    developing alternative namespaces.
>> 
>>    [Ed note: Text inside square brackets ([]) is additional background
>>    information, answers to frequently asked questions, general musings,
>>    etc.  They will be removed before publication.  This document is
>>    being collaborated on in Github at: https://github.com/wkumari/draft-
>>    wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld.  The most recent version of the document, open
>>    issues, etc should all be available here.  The authors (gratefully)
>>    accept pull requests. ]
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/
>> 
>> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-15
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-15
>> 
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>