Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] [rssac] draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld

Roy Arends <roy.arends@icann.org> Mon, 12 October 2020 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <roy.arends@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44F73A0CED; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 GlBf01KR4xWV; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 222633A0CF0; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-VA-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.48.207]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with ESMTPS id 09CDcpff013329 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:38:52 GMT
Received: from MBX112-E2-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.217.41.130) by MBX112-E2-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.217.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.659.4; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:38:51 -0400
Received: from MBX112-E2-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org ([10.217.41.130]) by MBX112-E2-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org ([10.217.41.130]) with mapi id 15.02.0659.006; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:38:51 -0400
From: Roy Arends <roy.arends@icann.org>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [rssac] [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld
Thread-Index: AQHWoJ0FR54bk+30Eka/y1E/JOVydw==
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:38:50 +0000
Message-ID: <B8FEA811-F1B6-4059-9299-05CACC9FCB1D@icann.org>
References: <660686D2-83BB-4D83-B989-5A54862479A3@dnss.ec> <CADZyTk=O2JX8kanxpd3mmd-ix2b23mgVk+k4JBpswg467APNfQ@mail.gmail.com> <EB9FA391-5C0A-442C-B78B-428DA74D3192@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EB9FA391-5C0A-442C-B78B-428DA74D3192@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.236]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6164B9FF-72D0-4C86-A8F0-60EB497B4630"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-10-12_09:2020-10-12, 2020-10-12 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/G5k_c4-ob_b1n87EVS5G4ZU2nmI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] [rssac] draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:38:58 -0000

> On 12 Oct 2020, at 08:44, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 8, 2020, at 7:08 AM, Daniel Migault via RSSAC <rssac@icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Just to let you know that the draft for the private tld has been adopted as WG document. 
>> 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-00.txt__;!!PtGJab4!qHw-_WPRJG1YyMoR9K-baj4pViqk2fJQzJDsZbPg0smvVfNrGkUePaUGZNI96GahZI69WNY$ 
>> 
>> Yours, 
>> Daniel
> 
> Thanks, Daniel.
> 
> Joe and Roy, I'm trying to figure out how you intend these names to be managed and used. In your draft, you opine that having some form of private tld may be useful, and it may be.

Thank you for taking the time to read the document.

> You apparently don't intend them to be announced in the root zone

That is correct. 

> (or any other zone)

We make no assumptions on other zones. 

> , and note that there is nothing that precludes them being formally defined and published from the root in the future, invalidating all extant uses of any such name without warning or review.

This initial version of the draft details that it is highly unlikely that these two letter strings will ever be delegated, as it would violate principles that were set out in the past. You are quite right that nothing (in this draft) precludes them being formally defined. 
> 
> That seems a little precarious.

One possible avenue that we’re researching is to treat these two letter strings as code points that at one point were set by the ISO as user-assigned, and should therefor be reserved (in the tradition of reserving previously assigned code points so that they can not be re-assigned to mean other things) and designate them as “special use” (RFC6761, RFC8244).

> How do you plan to manage them?

It seems to me that using the Special-Use Domain Names is a potential avenue to make sure that these are indeed never delegated from the root zone. Naturally this should all be done in coordination with the various ICANN communities and liaisons. 

 I hope this addresses your question. 

We will detail our progress at the IETF109 DNSOP WG and hopefully publish version -01 of this document.

Warm regards,

Roy