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

Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> Thu, 02 January 2014 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <christian@grothoff.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66CD1AC7EE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:30:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CMwwX5dSa4wA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C091E1A1F5F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (pd95c0f92.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.92.15.146]) by mail.net.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7072C1885373; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 22:30:08 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52C5DA5C.1090605@grothoff.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 22:30:04 +0100
From: Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
References: <20131231000412.GV4291@mx1.yitter.info> <52C323CE.3090909@grothoff.org> <20131231234421.GA5732@mx1.yitter.info> <52C48A4A.6090303@in.tum.de> <4C051985-6E70-463A-9672-02657842754D@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C051985-6E70-463A-9672-02657842754D@vpnc.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 21:30:22 -0000

On 01/02/2014 09:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Christian Grothoff <grothoff@in.tum.de> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Well, my point is that if you expect everybody to first get an RFC
>>  through to document everything they are doing, expect squatting.
> 
> We do. And squatters should expect that the name that they are using
>  might eventually be legitimately assigned later, possibly to someone
>  whose intentions are quite different from the squatters. This is how
>  the IETF has worked for over 20 years. The purpose of RFC 6761 is
> not to say "if you start squatting on a TLD, you will be able to
> later get it reserved". It is to say "if there are legitimate errors
> in TLD use, those can be dealt with".

Well, let's just say my reading of the intent of RFC 6761 is different.

> It seems that one of the themes of your responses here is "the TLDs 
> are now being used in software and we won't change that software 
> ever".

You need to learn about about free software here, as you're assuming
that anyone really is in a position to say that. These are GPL projects,
thus anyone can change that software in any way they feel like.  I'm
merely suggesting that my personal opinion is that such a patch is
unlikely to be widely adopted. You're welcome to prove me wrong, writing
the patch should be hardly any work, after all.

> If that is a correct reading, then there really isn't any reason to 
> move forwards on these requests. The folks using the names are 
> squatting, and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of 
> the application, much less the outcome of ICANN later allocating 
> those TLDs to someone else.

Didn't Apple squat on ".local" and get it reserved using RFC 6761? I
think you're are in total denial of facts that have been discussed in
this context on this very list already.

> On the other hand, if the software using the currently-squatted TLDs
>  are willing to change the names, there is room for discussion. One 
> possibility for RFC 6761 is that an application can specify a use for
> a non-allocated TLD, and a random string (short, typeable, but 
> unlikely to be wanted by anyone in the ICANN space) can be generated
>  for that. So, instead of ".bit" (which has high value), ".gp4x7" 
> could be allocated. That gets the community what they want (a string
>  that ICANN is prevented from later allocating) and follows the
> spirit of RFC 6761.

Sorry, Hollywood-math about the 'value' of a name has also already been
discussed.  However, I'm willing to agree that ".bit" has value to
society --- because it is already used by Namecoin. A name that is not
even used has no established value.