Re: [DNSOP] getting back to our work on special use names

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:41 PM Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> It's time to get back to our work on special use names. As the chairs see
> it, here's what we need to do between now and IETF 98 (end of March).
> We'll be having a DNSOP WG interim meeting shortly, see below.
>
> 1. We need to advance the problem statement document,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/. Please
> review and comment on the list. We'd like to have a WGLC on it before IETF
> 98.
>
>
Some additional background.
The ICANN SSAC (Security and Stability Advisory Committee) recently (Dec
22nd) published SAC090 -
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf (full
disclosure: I'm an author).

It is short, and easily readable -- I'd strongly encourage you to read it
(but I'll provide some teasers to tempt you!).
It notes that "a central authority to control the way in which domain names
are used in all contexts-is both infeasible and undesirable given the
robustly non-centralized way in which the Internet ecosystem evolves", and
that a coordinated management of the namespace might be best.
It also finds that uncoordinated use leads to ambiguity (and instability),
and that currently ICANN and the IETF (and others) all allocate from a
single namespace.
It recommends that ICANN
1: create criteria for determining what labels can be TLDs.
2: figure out how to coordinate with a: the IETF declaring names as
"special" (6761) and b: other "private use" names.

This is a very quick summary, please go actually read it - there are only
~6 pages of actual content, but it recommends coordination with the IETF.
So, please, let's try and get this moving -- I'd hate it if the IETF ends
up looking more dysfunctional than ICANN :-P

Also, ~3 days ago someone posted about .onion (and Special Use Names) on
hackernews -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370488 . This topic is
still of interest to a bunch of people...

> 2. Now that we have a working problem statement, we'd like to see
> proposals on possible changes to IETF procedures to resolve the issues
> we've raised. We're looking for on-list discussion, preferably with posted
> I-Ds.
>
> These proposals do not have to be limited to work for the DNSOP WG; they
> may also include work we think belongs in other WGs, or requests to the
> IESG or the IAB (such as liaison statements to groups outside of the IETF).
>
> We have had a proposal, for the ALT TLD, before us for some time now,
> which we put aside while we worked on the problem statement. As part of
> assessing solutions, we need to review
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ and determine
> what the WG wants to do with it. Comments to the list, please.
>

Yes please. The document is still parked, but please send me comments *on
the draft* and I'll try keep track of them to incorporate. I know that
there is much background which can be culled, I'll post a new version to
GitHub with that done soon.

W

>
> 3. We're scheduling an interim WG meeting during the week of January 30
> for further work on this topic. We'll provide some possible days/times to
> the list for feedback shortly, and we can't promise to accomodate
> everyone's schedule constraints but will do our best.
>
>
> best,
> Suzanne & Tim
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>