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

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

>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