Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

George Michaelson <> Tue, 04 April 2017 01:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C3D1267BB for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ZNgVqD5yXfQ for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0B761201F2 for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s68so158848031vke.3 for <>; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TgpN9DqnGSObn1dKN46XZEWLPNnHJ1w+2htXqUYlWOQ=; b=O9fz8O2X9VIonrOsYrzXTRvty0IDQ6gHgWqhPMS/uO1nkVEl79b9R1fVr0CO3D2miJ 3VeBaXR/NWsF3+575ljMn1wp+ozuNZLAnSXu+KMU0+SFtbh1A3daaoDMS6xgkwZxkAsu TNZ2s6fX33IWuVU9HfqEhxX7a+j1F+8c+zOWAYomKAuhMzh3/wDdAXx2Ug9GKfY1dB18 XI54LW2k64boqRw5oBY5HENVMaHp0MZzOpQkDX5upHT4S+4aPxtxXp8SQnyt5c3WtoK5 IuFiqtr68RVgKuUrVdKQCaUH26uTzmsw8pcNGyXWKwYZIQrJfp7mf7x4aftfE/3GMmdu oUuw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TgpN9DqnGSObn1dKN46XZEWLPNnHJ1w+2htXqUYlWOQ=; b=igrO+EI57XuQzVZwTOUwyaKN1aAvK7upZCHNLyDzzD4qPoqaVQWFhy3XHdGeJqa5B5 gxF1HiKUveEFhdun0fVLAKmnUWT96eCBYGTiluMytfHOUsXnKJoeyeT9FaYPK9MEvpXj FmwOweoShaKGvvr9Q1y2GN5OwAZd3S+RLKQuN/oxQdeqq3LJOgv1UiIxxmZDrUlT0sML LakkZGl8EPMWnMdqP3T2PJdTApc2PByGn0ak0jAA3jGmzA6g31nng25PEGBL9BAlK0pi OXPd0gcjQ0S3IxIGwQsxzN6NXfRtXOsVz794GFPrXyVxCI2XArkKnpYo77uCaVmqnofM wnGg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2I3NPZ4rm1+qKDM1OoBHIxkTrRkQFW/NDCHm+svBkptkgZT1pNXKhvCprtTySLK8kkqCrB6UfJh8rvYw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 13mr957458uao.46.1491267739625; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:465:201f:394f:6f28]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:02:19 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 01:02:23 -0000

The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note]
which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be
addressed directly, not as editorial.

Secondly, The authors make a judgement call in this block that they
feel requesting delegation is not required. I don't feel the consensus
was that strong actually, but you know, I guess I could be wrong on

Thirdly the draft contains no language which actually explains why a
TLD is required, rather than a deterministic string which denotes 'not
in the DNS' -It may be blindingly obvious to you it has to be a TLD,
but given that the entry of DNS label-strings into the DNS is through
software, and given that at some point, the simple un-parsed string
'something.alt' has to be presented, I would have expected an
explanation why '' as a pattern match in the DNS entry can't
work as well as 'alt'. Bear in mind, that the argumentative text
states .ONION is a comparator, so poses the problem back on (future)
s/w authors that currently seek a TLD as a pattern match, and now have
to code to ONION.ALT as a pattern match (the match on ALT implies
parsing it off, to denote ONION as a non-DNS label, or embedding of
ALT in the non-DNS namespace) so the dots-parsing problem exists for
the s/w owners *come what may*

Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that
any more' and I think the draft at the bare minimum should say why
this draft is special, against that letter.  You make a compelling and
simple case: because its specifically NOT-DNS, not public DNS, its not
relevant. Ok, then say so. 'we didn't say so because it wasn't
relevant' feels pretty weak to me.

I can do this as a nit in the GIT if you prefer.


On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:27, George Michaelson wrote:
>> isn't this OBE and it's now?
> No.
>> Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed
>> without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case.
> Are you saying that because of:
> If so, I suspect you read it wrong. My reading is that the IAB is only
> saying that names that are supposed to act like DNS names (that is, to exist
> in the public DNS) need to be under .arpa. This draft explicitly is about
> non-DNS contexts.
> --Paul Hoffman