Re: [DNSOP] About reserving .corp, .home, and .mail

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 02 December 2015 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 EE7671B2DE2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:55:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.762
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.762 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 P1a61ZI3JVr6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE59C1B2A7D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:55:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 1258 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2015 21:55:24 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=4e9.565f68cc.k1512; bh=+7+5HHJklL4YVUBDDIxearpssZLLHFB9uVFL6Los3P4=; b=pSk7y9XFhbWPW+1GNNRH6Kc9eSg98u5dFVhAGb+pzimiuzeDwRQh5l5TJcCwu/2z+tBe9akyHNOlFyO8xN4bmbIxZeKQ98peOcnVnsvxYDuOjcJNw78QtUfPgnc5MO9J3LUmhl/wEddgrSd4Jr5UbRpfGCwN9RAVllxnaMMWm/UGpu7hDlgfEQgR7qqcK86rfV2qNJPDhAmyMRooCPcsjG18azSVUha86/yfn3n1xPiLMbKLHmcN0Xfb7VTlefG0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=4e9.565f68cc.k1512; bh=+7+5HHJklL4YVUBDDIxearpssZLLHFB9uVFL6Los3P4=; b=MP9P9o3h8ab6hWtfY/uHAX6sKJhlOBeVZtLiq9tCXbP72FbvZgddrlmIbvWgqmK9bwujeBYia0U/0v0i0+Php2HTiVw3CFthBTe/6870KtaNlBsPjSh259dkv7Vyfnwh04syJO7J7bctTDwjuCP7Uemkp7Jkp0YfE/bRVoRbBVohmlotUSNBfnxcLE60CxJMcV8If+1FBkG30EYZcGpzb+m+tRI7Duhp0G4k4i6OEwpznsqXo7ln63/nh9Vv1nEk
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 02 Dec 2015 21:55:24 -0000
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 16:55:24 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1512021652140.27913@ary.lan>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_i+KCKzZRxHOBRtEro00zF=V5c=Ya6Ab2xuuirqG-vus8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20151202161603.22931.qmail@ary.lan> <CAHw9_i+KCKzZRxHOBRtEro00zF=V5c=Ya6Ab2xuuirqG-vus8Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/E123QYZyNWHwdx3iBFqq3Yb_Nl4>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] About reserving .corp, .home, and .mail
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: <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: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 21:55:27 -0000

> The slidedeck presented at the NameCollisions workshop said:
> "The TLDs .corp, .home and .mail should be permanently reserved"

Yup, we were both there.  The new report has more details, notably that 
when he looked at the traffic for corp.com, which he figured would get 
traffic from DNS search lists, boy did he ever.  I think the word he 
used was stupendous.  Its characteristics suggested that no plausible set 
of changes would make it stop, or even slow down very much.  The domain's 
owner had done all of the wild card poisoning tricks, none of which made 
any difference at all.

> This is all part of the larger discussions on the IETF handling of RFC6761
> / Special Use Names (a topic which will make me start frothing at the
> mouth, and run my dinner), so I'm going to jsut leave it at that...

At least everyone seems to agree that those are the three names poisoned 
by existing usage, and there aren't any others with that particular 
problem.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.