Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 18 August 2019 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 C33C3120169 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=POeKmQF/; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=UTYOwp3V
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 BTmRaarM_scQ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF90E120143 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 64869 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2019 18:29:36 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fd62.5d599910.k1908; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=60SsWyBe8tLvUJ4HuFtE/fUJEej0fX8hexFDugWiCfI=; b=POeKmQF/LA/9/LADPnqSpm4GAwubJV1PLDWZU3sfZ0zvTy8QWuFo0Lw2/NDDGLXqsVrcQo6aGE5kyM4g+ZAUqCmbhGyHtjbVRVfkUSkk7ZNNR7UegDXoMwMRY+JO+35+pwka/fhIQaNk312s7Sa07KnCzFLV0x1zk/gIafDbXKwHXRZ5JBlGkVE/qZ923qkSQpHOz03YxF0PkIYJUa7xeEqkLs0OiCq5OuV2tl6jzJMn/sxpA0u0Lw0hZkYiCYp5
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fd62.5d599910.k1908; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=60SsWyBe8tLvUJ4HuFtE/fUJEej0fX8hexFDugWiCfI=; b=UTYOwp3VLxaFwQNW2HTF8ye8d/y0DPLHJvREBZyntR448a7LLa6quDBksRMahJnZKHkWEqIsERP8aJc2Ilc6SFzxVdCqBieWscwEP5FUMvmXH+ScYzkwm/m6mryOSQz8N+aOblvCPq6oyA4moxiVWiXVG+ps8skLdlxBzFhCkJcToS8lmzeQyHa1yAWCv5HZRBeoSKf5IdAhpiNXkLCEFW4xgqPUAc2d5WN8TjaNoVPHZ//pw/UWod08b1lzBfbo
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP; 18 Aug 2019 18:29:36 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id F172A87452C; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:29:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 18 Aug 2019 14:29:35 -0400
Message-Id: <20190818182935.F172A87452C@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: suzworldwide@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <119AA1A0-86AB-4757-8B15-E36822A3C6FF@gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1zeqvQ9bkQZo5P-caGsVt1di_Q4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:29:39 -0000

>So it would be helpful to know if you think the recommendations are in fact reasonable. 

I think they're reasonable but I would more clearly distinguish cases
by where the protocol switch is, where I think these are the
interesting ones:

1. Names handled totally unlike the DNS with nothing like an IP address (.onion)

2. Names handled through mutant DNS which can returns IP addresses (.local, .localhost, .homenet/.home.arpa)

3. Names that have other problems such as conflicting prior use (.test, .example, .invalid, also .home, .belkin)

For 1, we can reserve if if there's a compelling argument and evidence
of clear use.  This leads to a catch 22 where the only way to get the
evidence is to squat on it, but I don't see any way around it.  I
particularly do not want to reserve names just because someone claims
to have a great plan.  I think this probably includes Warren's great
plan for .alt.

For 2, we seem to agree that future reservations, if any, will go under .arpa.

For 3, we already did .test, .invalid, and .example which seem to have
solved that particular problem.  I think the question of what might be
too cruddy to delegate is ICANN's problem.  As you know better than I
do, ICANN has a big project to characterize "cruddy" and I don't see
the IETF having anything to contribute there.

R's,
JOhn