Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:34 PM Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "David Conrad" <drc@virtualized.org>
> To: "Philip Homburg" <pch-dnsop@u-1.phicoh.com>
> Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
> Sent: 8/04/2016 12:38:26 a.m.
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft
>
>
> Philip,
>
> On Apr 7, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop@u-1.phicoh.com>
> wrote:
>
>  However, having lived through a period where many different naming
> systems where
>  use in parallel and seeing what benefits it brought to have to consider
> just DNS,
>  I think a model where IETF and ICANN actively control the consistency of
> the
>  internet name space is best.
>
>
> I do not believe IETF or ICANN have that level of control. The Internet is
> known for "permissionless innovation" for a reason.
>
>
>  I have created naming systems myself. And there are many reasons to
> dislike
>  DNS and do something different.
>
>
> Right.
>
>
>  But ultimately, for the stability of the internet, it is best to not do
> that.
>  Write some experimental code, write a few papers and be done with it.
> Then,
>  if you still care about the problem, work within the IETF to improve DNS.
>
>
> I believe the point of the special use registry is that these are
> protocols that are not DNS and have no interest in being in the DNS, but
> which make use of domain name conventions.  The alternative to the special
> use registry is not that such names won't exist, rather it is that the
> names will collide with names in the DNS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> the question is whether we should fundamentally change the domain name
> system to accommodate this or not.  My position is we should not.
>
> Just because TOR asks for .onion doesn't mean it should be given it.
>
> I understand the IETF is supposed to obtain consensus, but I didn't see
> anything in http WG on this until after the fact.  Special use names has
> wide-ranging repercussions.
>
> If an author of a product chooses to devise a new non-dns resolution
> mechanism, and use names that are confusingly similar to domain names, and
> use names that may be issued by ICANN in the DNS, then I'm sorry but they
> need to look for an alternative technical solution.
>

... or choose a different string(s) so that they are *not* confusingly
similar to the DNS. If someone designs a product which uses the suffix
string .c0m the response could be "That's a security (phishing) issue, how
abut you instead use <something else>?".
.onion A: was not a name which had been applied for nor existed in the DNS
and B: had a large installed base.

> Not make everyone else in the world change to suit them.
>

Yup. However (even though I have a badge which claims otherwise) we are not
the Internet police. Using a string to delineate "your" portion of a
namespace is not something that the IETF can prevent ( .onion launched a
sucessful resolution system without "us") - if we provide a process which
has some reasonable review, and is not ridiculously painful to follow, we
can maintain a registry of these. If the process is difficult / arcane /
etc we will simply have "squatters".

W

>
> Regards
>
> Adrien
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> -drc
> (speaking only for myself)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>