Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Joe Abley <> Mon, 03 February 2014 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D301A01FB for <>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:35:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60UjNBWA7Z9O for <>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686FB1A0162 for <>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id cm18so10667757qab.26 for <>; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:35:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=pGQ7SmfhrL/GE7x/F9NAlfpuhUR8+/qyDroJLyr9a9w=; b=BOXjPFMLCD8Inax0OJLoXdLgJX+Jf9j34yuwfY5uiTH7htz2+jkKVGhWH3anVaYpw4 gz8fcH5fiHAF5qlazgqVuPkcQDVkEPBdTwuIkyZ9N6TQ6h8TvPx/p81cnep9CqY4F8fs ZI7enzWqQrMBsUSjCBYB6IMsw4/jh+YyiVhSQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=pGQ7SmfhrL/GE7x/F9NAlfpuhUR8+/qyDroJLyr9a9w=; b=OjikrMozZGZYghKqondRgSpbmg+rJi9JOZg3XuAARfs/ytL9t58VUDpKSVB4NM1Gs9 kce9ukzr5X8fegJBCWOgb5MG30TR1kONs5BEwKKxPHjW0r75sJ6Wqu3yPyJ1tr8Qdsuj VI+nJTxE89+2J0JxS5Uu3e+Z8tCvUqvbtmj4V4Hx+LWTUmGnEZuLzzRAJVQ0a4XkgDKH Y1gBrz9rMFO9MS/K/BHY/RJpD7MBdODJAi4npiclv9GPl4RoR9mRg1Pk/gs5ImgEw3ip LCfQmh8A2P952QLd9F3fNJDFZKVatHgphaSR6Zx8ukbyt4DRCBxXcQQTXw+IJtexBk+G ohXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIHDlezz2Uqg6w3DaO09Mc+D1rXajkRO27KvfNPCs9C/9DqxlkVDaLGn5frQZyMsaJD8My
X-Received: by with SMTP id i6mr23848328qcf.10.1391459716519; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:35:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id u4sm59778572qai.21.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:35:15 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AC167ED6-0581-42F3-8493-3BA4D57046A0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Joe Abley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:35:13 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <20140129055438.2402.qmail@joyce.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 20:35:19 -0000

On 2014-02-03, at 11:15, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <> wrote:
>> "squatted" is not a bad word here. In the physical world, squatters
>> are often people who do not have the money to rent a home, because
>> some rich people put the price of the housing too high. Here, you will
>> have trouble convincing the users of Tor or Namecoin that it is right
>> to pay 185 000 $ for a TLD and that, if they cannot afford it, they
>> have to stay in the slums.
>> [End of political rant, sorry]
> Your political rant is, however, off-base. Assume for the moment that the Tor folks had registered for a relatively small amount of money. It could have all of the attributes of .onion: you could hard-wire it into local resolvers, some requests for it would leak to the DNS and therefore possibly be trackable, and so on. For the purposes given in draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names, unsquatted FQDNs would work just as well as squatted TLDs.

I made that point somewhat earlier (but my example was or something).

The reasonable response to my instance of that observation was that there's a significant deployed base of users already making use of .onion [1], and we don't have a time machine that we're aware of [2] to allow that to be fixed.

Despite the enduring (and endearing, perhaps) optimism that the new gTLD programme would eventually bear fruit, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that in 2002 [3] a new gTLD wasn't really a practical option to choose not to take.

So squatting doesn't sound right to me.