Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 3 Mar 2014, at 9:51, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/14, 9:25 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> Warren makes a strong argument in favor of .alt I think.
>>
>> yeah... anything that has the potential to result in additional leakage
>> seems like a recipe for additional pain.
>
> Well, except that the current proposal is to reserve (not delegate) ALT.
>

Weeeeeelll....

Actually it says (Section 3):

 1.  Stub resolvers MAY elect not to send queries to any upstream
       resolver for names in the ALT TLD.

   2.  Iterative resolvers SHOULD follow the advice in [RFC6303],
       Section 3.

   3.  The root zone nameservers should either return NXDOMAIN
       responses, or the ALT TLD should be delegated to "new style"
       AS112 nameservers.  (TODO(WK): WK, JA, BD to revive AS112 /
       AS112-bis).

Item 3 is specifically about this question -- it can either be that
the root continues to not know about the ALT "TLD"[0] or it could be
delegated to a new style AS112, which will, in theory, happily sink
$whatever.

That's an open question, but (IMO) a detail.

W

[0]: Much of this draft and discussion is made complicated by
terminology problems. If someone uses www.foo.tld in their own
protocol, it the rightmost label a TLD? Probably not... But, if the
name (which is *not* a DNS name), but is "DNS like" leaks into the
DNS, then it is...


> If we assume that leaks will happen, then they will hit the root servers and there's no opportunity to sink the queries anywhere else.
>
> If we delegate ALT, then we have to decide where to. I can see this being contentious.
>
>
> Joe