Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

Ted Lemon <> Sat, 17 September 2016 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A24D12B25D for <>; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HixOI2TMGM-H for <>; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EBA012B09C for <>; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h127so84502785lfh.0 for <>; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oxfgV/USQiI0SEmd5Pn5v6G/tYEIZ7YbbEgEfleDef4=; b=V38l1Q1GxJ8vnxq3mde1wOfYcurvr7G0ZmxrcF6Fc3f9OrzAGxTfrMhLqQSH7HjBOb /DZopm2u4SqVSJMOoVIDGnEwJI38kOqOMMUY56kXi2B4/evd/p1BuQnvwjV44p5Ijrk0 7WJsjEkAVdoS/uy1xFkjTBlfpF7lTgCgi+SKrWeM2AcwUzDzXcLeq3VgxfMnTFRBPqmu O+VTWFhlzQPbG0fZX8wU+LxtGUHnEGn91FD3uoyXSfIta2dcDbTlfboA5NAAPSiXo0ij AUQb4g1QvPwX4E0VrEBqSZdMDEyed1pdHzEsDtdpS0mrlpFKReD3qEnGufYkMWDnDbcJ zcXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oxfgV/USQiI0SEmd5Pn5v6G/tYEIZ7YbbEgEfleDef4=; b=ldddv6eHwpEzVjlvxcRvggd0W97Q7t0d7D0AWqbKmv44aVoAMfDpD5l01IJowOapij dsupfBwBU6T80+sCQQIe8+86WIT2dTX05T2emFinJlUFTtvMO58mSzdg+8siGPdz3HCs 6yEWUs15eim4VUXlMqM1V/p0QbvjO1vjGo01AnvAji34LzuH16ojZJUnXSIrMCSmdg8o Nb08duYb5Ygi9qbEQOsDzTDEU0sbHFYcQ6ebTSoJX4KpYKL+40gzoAokXvGstI2DCb9m ETZxHjsB6ZaUkfIvx699iruZ4nh+qEbivlsWwuRH0Xmulbo0jtsqkQWQ4kbeC7Kyj7vw tPng==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOOx0KOu95UYNSVCfK36qwuKPdkIPdN1dQUFUVqFaX2a179W7TtHqQts1GRCqz8W65Sky38hqAUG6v8sg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h8mr7464466lfd.152.1474126669415; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160917001036.71292.qmail@ary.lan> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 11:37:08 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Alain Durand <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fba9e7c0a52053cb5dc7a
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, John Levine <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 15:37:54 -0000

I would just like to point out that what we are talking about doing is
documenting the problem that we think needs to be addressed.   One of the
reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed that the
original effort had gone way too far down the path toward solutions,
without there being a clear agreement on what problems exist, and what
problems we as a working group can get consensus to try to address.

This discussion is again going down the solution space path.   I understand
the motivation, and I don't disagree with it, but I really would like to
get a problem statement before we start talking about solutions.

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Alain Durand <>

> What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure
> toxicity. We could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and
> maybe then define a threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that
> particular string.
> I would personally agree with your assessment that maintaining this list
> in 6761 is problematic, for the reason mentioned in section 3.f of
> darft-adpkja:
> "f.  [RFC6761] does not have provision for subsequent management of
>        the registry, such as updates, deletions of entries, etc…”
> Alain.
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:10 PM, John Levine <> wrote:
> This is the toxic waste bit.  The names don't make sense in the 6761
> special use registry, since they're not being used in any way that is
> or can be standardized, but they also aren't suitable for delegation
> due to widespread de facto use.  I also expect that if we redid last
> year's debate in anything like the same way, we'd have the same
> result, one or two highly motivated people who work for TLD applicants
> would sabotage it.
> As I hardly need tell you, it is utterly unclear whether it makes more
> sense to have the IETF reserve them or, to switch hats and encourage
> ICANN to put them on a list of names that aren't in use but can't be
> delegated as SAC045 suggests.
> One reason that the latter makes slightly more sense is that it's
> likely that some of those names will eventually become less polluted,
> so the list needs to be reconsidered every once in a while (years.)
> For example, I gather that it's been a decade since Belkin stopped
> making routers that leak .belkin traffic, and at some point most of
> them will be gone.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list