Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

[Bob Harold <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> (no hats, as I haven't discussed with my co-chair and AD.)
>
> ...
> It would be helpful to me in discerning consensus to separate two
> different concepts here.
>
> 1. Delegating home/corp/mail in the root zone would be bad.
> 2. Adding home/corp/mail to the special-use name registry would be good.
>

I support "2".


> Again, trying my best to speak as a disinterested observer of the
> discussion, I've seen little support for such delegations(1). I've seen a
> couple of arguments that seem to have strong support against such
> delegations.
>
> However, that's not the question in front of the WG. The IETF doesn't
> decide what goes into the root zone. ICANN does, and appears to have
> already decided (stipulating that not everyone believes them, which strikes
> me as a separate problem) not to add those names to the root zone.
>
> The question in front of the WG is whether to propose adding those names
> to the IETF registry for special-use names(2). I've heard support for that,
> but I've also heard a number of objections to such additions, and I'm
> having trouble telling how much the support for (2) is really support for
> (1) or vice versa.
>
> It remains less than obvious to me what outcome is being sought here. I
> first thought it was to influence the body that *does* decide what goes
> into the root zone against a possible future change in policy, but it's
> also been repeatedly asserted that no, the proposal is motivated by
> operational considerations.
>
> I realize I may be dim, but what operational impact is sought here?  What
> change in server or resolver configuration are administrators expected to
> make? Is there some other possible source of name collisions besides a
> change in the root zone that we can or should be guarding against? Given
> that the problem people seem concerned about developed entirely outside of
> any action by the IETF, how does the IETF acting now help?
>

The operational impact sought here includes changes to software:   "name
resolution APIs and libraries" and "caching domain name server software"
and "authoritative domain name server software" all "SHOULD restrict these
names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for strings that use
these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to the public DNS for
resolution."
-- and change to policy: --
"Requests to register any names added to the Special-Use Domain Name
registry as part of the IANA Considerations section of this document MUST
be denied."

>
> I understand the argument that the IETF can and should prevent such a
> misstep by ICANN, so reiterating it won't help me.
>
> thanks,
> Suzanne
>
>
-- 
Bob Harold