Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

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

>On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask
>> the WG to choose.

The more I think about it, the more I think that they're both too
long, and we'd be better off with a one or two sentence description of
what we're trying to do, perhaps along these lines:

  * Describe how and when to recognize domain names that are handled
  in ways other than the DNS.  (That's mDNS and .onion)

or

  * Describe how and when to recognize domain names that should not
  be delegated in the DNS. (That's the toxic waste.)

or maybe something else, so long as it's short.


Also, FYI:

>> 4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS ...

>This study is from before the new gTLD program.  The assumption in the
>report need to be tested against what actually happened in the round of
>new gTLDs before it can be included as part of the fact basis for this
>work.  We also need information on the degree of success that the
>various mitigation strategies had in overcoming possible problems to
>have a full picture of the problem as it has been shown in practice.

At a meeting a couple of weeks ago, I believe that someone said that
the junk traffic at the roots for each of .corp, .home and .mail still
greatly exceeds all of the traffic for the new gTLDs.  So I think it's
safe to say none of the mitigation strategies have worked.

The wildcard 127.0.53.53 and such are clever, but none of the domains
that have been delegated had significant collision issues to start
with so it's hard to argue they've been effective.

R's,
John