Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

George Michaelson <> Thu, 29 September 2016 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F83812B331 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.607
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 Be5zPLnRkvHs for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFB8F12B32B for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 192so88493053vkl.2 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:31:44 -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=+URHRKwN3B9YEENBTn666m003pz9/+nZXWbasm8IZek=; b=v2vb/9cOagvrPMFmY1SDAbEFxXEfOJ0yMlx6fIWhkbDntuUPYPmeTiWpBquMnEvW/s 9FsapKi4J0kekoML2PTbNQTSFAowCZzJohrFMfdXY90xl0QXTBz9Ez+rTgjYFjuA8lnq Uppqq+Y5CQJ+lxHFdjINjGgzVHEoTKkSoRSIE7/ehF9EmqnkvJJOcz/t0e51aFNc9OGp EwTM/P16tikz8nXpoWmI+CavaYN7r+AvWr5Bh9hnGcP5EmpR+7734FG04ItijS532Pyd 3lXUy8b983h37EvwIdHmPKRApL5ce6Xm3VNzBIQ5YgEN4PE6MX22acVkqeDFL10DDylw cSDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+URHRKwN3B9YEENBTn666m003pz9/+nZXWbasm8IZek=; b=dAbtgY2/0kB8FkM8GdK1PdADZGirvhmWVCJanMuZOzCENaN1x5HFIcOZOOmgrw6UCN gJdaLWFpshIIpFDDcj8zkZq5wXezIKjgYNRM81ljB/aQRlNw7Q6gWejY66kruCxy4Cma YcxSP85XE0AQhfFVa9i0Xi4Y7/KqdaEqnhX+onVdRVFUYGvaDY+I69PiudBvCjRk0rLv b5MFv9rGMgS5wk8x6u4BSt4gXE3eGm4/12m0d5BKqH8TE6Be7O4uHeB85oh+LzSADsk5 SXqBVjnlnZjWluXPVqOD1s9pOOHgIyq9YV36N5EQcFcPHgAJ5IDhMTtblI3ZnNsxVC1l /uEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkuffIbtbsUdOWFyme15TSx0Y7Gjj3lLnTORilIuTD6LivQy2BB1X/asUT3ADiai5N2bok4OnJ4ugT6ow==
X-Received: by with SMTP id m67mr3460218vkg.43.1475188303926; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:e554:8678:891c:e3ed]
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609291308110.84794@ary.qy>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609291308110.84794@ary.qy>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:31:43 +1000
Message-ID: <>
To: "John R. Levine" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop WG <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:32:00 -0000

The initiation problem is the belief IETF needs a mechanism to
identify non-use of the DNS or special use of the DNS demanding a
break-out from normal gethostbyname() and related processing.

The second order problem is that people come to the table with
proscriptive ideas about the specific label: where it is in the DNS
hierarchy, and what string value the label bears.

The latter, is the decision-role of ICANN. Under advisement, yes.
respecting IETF process yes. But the mechanism as written in 6761
vests IETF with a process outcome which specifies where the label is,
and what value. Thats just wrong.

Consider IANA codepoints. You don't tell IANA "I want 42" -You ask
IANA to reserve one and in draft status, you use a $nonce and in
publication its assigned BY IANA AT THAT TIME or, if pre-reserved, we
understand how and why.

The current 6761 breaks this model. It breaches process badly inside
ICANN and the worlds vesting of 'value' in DNS labels, (rightly or

Thats why I wrote the shut it down draft. The problem is not the
desire to reserve labels, its the way we've specified it, promoting
(a) top level and (b) specific strings into ICANN driven decision


On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:08 AM, John R. Levine <> wrote:
>> If the process was a success, we would have had the other candidates go
>> through as well. The process was a failure because it has been rather
>> arbitrary - which is why it needed to close down as it did.
> Some of us think that the process worked OK, and the other candidates
> don't meet the requirements that .onion did.
> This isn't to argue that 6761 is perfect, but that we have little
> agreement on if or how it's broken.
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list