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

hellekin <how@gnu.org> Thu, 22 September 2016 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <how@gnu.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E506012B472 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.243
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 eZeTG2duUxqU for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 04:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [208.118.235.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0822912B51E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 04:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <how@gnu.org>) id 1bn2IZ-0002FS-2c for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:36:18 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54519) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <how@gnu.org>) id 1bn2IZ-0002FM-0N for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:36:15 -0400
Received: from tor-exit1.sjc02.svwh.net ([162.213.3.221]:52796 helo=[0.0.0.0]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <how@gnu.org>) id 1bn2IX-0000Qa-OF for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:36:14 -0400
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAHw9_i+UVH78URWzk+4x=j9BZiKfX3C+UeFU9vz1OfZ3tPeN1Q@mail.gmail.com> <20160920133357.hbvtkrg5uwgzu4wh@nic.fr> <bdc67224-ec80-0732-d338-1d8e0376e7a9@gnu.org> <CAKr6gn0Dezee9JB1g+fBKqDsg4gHjau96S-ZTC4L4xpincsOwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: hellekin <how@gnu.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <f03bbbe0-5eaf-b1e3-d849-d24ff2573d40@gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:32:06 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn0Dezee9JB1g+fBKqDsg4gHjau96S-ZTC4L4xpincsOwg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9dMTFbNPPQUf5n-Kf9k444rGadE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:37:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 22 Sep 2016 14:48:31 -0000

On 09/21/2016 11:30 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> None of these named spaces would "fail" to work as sub-spaces of .ALT
> or .arpa or any other community-led IETF tech community managed label.
> 

All of them with a requirement for global uniqueness will fail with
.ALT, per .ALT draft.  Etc.

> you are bringing an assumption to the table: all things of world scale
> do not have to exist at the top of the worldwide name space.
>

I don't understand what you mean.  We come to the table saying: the
globally unique namespace of the Internet needs to recognize non-DNS
ways to resolve names, that are by technical design incompatible with
the delegation model of the DNS.  The way to do that, according to
RFC6761, is to put these non-DNS TLDs into a registry that tells DNS to
always send NXDOMAIN to tell the systems: no, that does not resolve with
the DNS.

> because its not at root a technology problem: its a name problem.
>

I think we have both.  The technical aspect I just formulated.  The
naming aspect so far boiled down to "Why X and not Y?", which indeed, is
not entirely technical (and the answer is: because it occurred like
that, and there's no name collision.)

Regards,

==
hk