Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 14 May 2015 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A591B2DA2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 18:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ArwpKNI0EC8q for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 18:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 75C8D1A8899 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 18:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56F8BDA0088; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:52:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (70.192.18.22) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 13 May 2015 18:52:45 -0700
References: <20150508193400.55273.qmail@ary.lan> <FF464258-0C33-45CC-A684-BAB7BCE8A8FB@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1505082118060.31363@ary.lan> <0902600F-134B-4688-9CDD-1ACB23431DDE@vpnc.org> <20150512010624.GC74841@mx2.yitter.info> <62970575-A605-4B3E-9E98-D760B47E8532@isoc.org> <CAHw9_i+jpobNKtim=Gw3ZAjaU6ff3A-SHVrGHqn0AW7-WOwsNQ@mail.gmail.com> <A789E52D-9682-42C7-AF04-A25C8C43450F@nominum.com> <CAHw9_iL8CkQ8VwaCXza+vsYh990MJWsdF0crAdq2qLbJdhG6-Q@mail.gmail.com> <DA7987D3-BA53-4D88-9B83-E272D728A70E@nominum.com> <20150512163603.GP75349@mx2.yitter.info> <F8108959-3BAD-4198-BF97-39B4C54F917C@nominum.com> <8EEA3B35-64CB-4960-A58A-7D6B62E11CCF@anvilwalrusden.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <8EEA3B35-64CB-4960-A58A-7D6B62E11CCF@anvilwalrusden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <742A1B10-0F7C-495D-B5CE-67F9577B4749@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 21:52:42 -0400
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Originating-IP: [70.192.18.22]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GZVGMKkqn7dkg2SG4SPMArwX1ds>
Cc: "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 14 May 2015 01:52:46 -0000

On May 13, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> I think you're missing a distinction I was making, however, which is that we should not be poaching on turf already handed to someone else.  Managing top-level domains that are intended to be looked up in the DNS -- even if people expect them to be part of a "local root" or otherwise not actually part of the DNS -- is, I increasingly think, part of ICANN's remit.  Managing things that are domain names that are by definition _never_ to be looked up in the DNS is different, and we have a legitimate claim (I'm arguing.  I should note I'm not sure I completely buy the distinction I'm making, but I want to keep testing it).  
> 
> The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different.  They are, in this fundamental resolution nature.  

Right. I agree that it's ICANN's decision whether to do what we say when we make suggestions about how to handle special top-level zones that should be delegated or repudiated. I agreed with you on this earlier, so I saw what you said two messages ago as making a different point.