Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names

Andrew Sullivan <> Mon, 06 January 2014 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9FF1AE256 for <>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:32:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HubzuX5qWhUh for <>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F941AE251 for <>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C3228A031 for <>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 21:32:02 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:32:01 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:32:12 -0000

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:56:53PM -0800, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
> You'd like to think that, but sorry no.  They are seen all the time:

No, that's different.  Now you're saying that sometimes people use
these for purposes other than what's documented, so they hand them
around.  If _that's_ the case, then on top of everything else the
documentation in this case is wrong, and therefore the argument for
the allocation is bad.

Look, I'm not opposed to these allocations in principle, but if we're
going to have two completely different ways of registering top level
domains and they're going to be responsible to two completely
different allocation bodies until the actual moment of registration
with IANA, then we are going to have to be _extremely careful_ with
how we do this.  It's true that .local was sort of a prior example,
but as Paul already pointed out there are quite significant
differences in the way that emerged.  Not the least of the differences
is that .local got going in an environment in which most of us were in
a position to assume the root zone was fairly small and fairly stable.
Those assumptions are now violated, and the plans for that violation
were announced a few years ago.  Conditions are different, and I think
it appropriate therefore to respond differently.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan