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

[Hugo Connery <[e-mail]>]

On 05/12/2015 02:49 PM, Dan York wrote:
> I’ve been reading this whole discussion with great interest over the past while and do intend on joining today’s call.  In the midst of all of this I think two points from Andrew and Ed have been helpful to my thinking:
>
>> On May 11, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that making new reservations solely on _policy_ grounds
>> is overstepping our role, because we actually gave that management
>> function away to someone else many years ago.  But if there are
>> additional protocol-shift registrations, it would be appropriate to do
>> that.
> I’m not sure I’m 100% on board with Andrew’s use of the term “protocol-shift” to explain the difference, but I do agree with his statement that reservations should not be made based *solely* on policy grounds and that there needs to be some true protocol-based reason for the reservation.
>
> Even better, I like Ed’s distinction:
>
>> On May 9, 2015, at 7:29 AM, Edward Lewis <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> The problem (the topic of discussion here) I see is that there are class
>> of strings that are intended to not be active in the DNS and further more,
>> the DNS isn't even meant to be consulted.  
>
> This to me is the key point.  Reserving names like .ONION makes sense to me because there is existing Internet infrastructure that is widely deployed and uses that TLD-like-name in its operation…. but has no expectation that the name would be active in DNS.   Were such a TLD ever to be delegated in DNS, it could conceivably *break* these existing services and applications.   Those are the kind of names that make sense to be reserved.
>
+1

[snip].

/Hugo Connery