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

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Fri, 08 May 2015 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <suzworldwide@gmail.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 7DA451A871C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2015 16:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 EXhZTdaLqW0d for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2015 16:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFDC41A871A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2015 16:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so42533729wiu.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 May 2015 16:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vbJvzR5uUxt4kf8nDqLaDq6AGZC2hGSfBPly2AGQDnk=; b=nz8ZTMae363F1sKrpyvRdKQxfm0XjYfM0EimBv+cohd1fGrnl6/8CrhZl2LjCFoOZE Wp3o7PqejRG7T82xkwdWaIR8MTPtGUEFMudidvDUI8XzjS3RUrL1zJ7urCxcEatXLAet 174kROt1hlogYlDU5e7BinomXBPsubv/ASxDlCLxweLkZ0/lNkJD25ZkhSwYBxMRb8Lx oxP8ItpiAyYZnz6Le0/V/1iFO6fTyK/2kWOd1k68q4M6W9k7Zk0RHfBgSOzGlgLxTBj4 Nk4nd4LPcmQRKaz8CBqjkMz17ZfkDiYwXxuOJyTcV39XIsPxUhk/IqWwuShwt9Vvn2sW 8DPQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.106.70 with SMTP id gs6mr1897106wib.36.1431126609803; Fri, 08 May 2015 16:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.67.45.61] ([31.55.27.23]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ex5sm983040wib.2.2015.05.08.16.10.08 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 May 2015 16:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2074.6\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150508193400.55273.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 00:10:07 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FF464258-0C33-45CC-A684-BAB7BCE8A8FB@gmail.com>
References: <20150508193400.55273.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2074.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/I1vaI9w-wiMUJtUhAiS0n35ZjnY>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, drc@virtualized.org
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: Fri, 08 May 2015 23:10:12 -0000

In the interests of maybe taking this argument a little further than we have the previous n times….

> On May 8, 2015, at 8:34 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
>>> "home", "corp" and perhaps "mail" need special handling if we really
>>> want to not cause problems for those using those tlds internally.
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> What objective criteria makes those TLDs special?
> 
> Data reportedly shows extensive off-the-books use in private networks.
> It's an obvious stability issue.

I share David’s reservations about this— how do we objectively and reproducibly distinguish “people are using these in private networks” from “people are generating arbitrary traffic to the roots for these”?

Is there any concern for the IETF in a policy that says “If you start using an arbitrary name that isn’t currently in the root zone, you can just get the IETF to protect it for you”?

Furthermore, given that ICANN has already said they won’t delegate these names in particular, how is it helpful for the IETF to also add them to the Special Use Names registry?


thanks,
Suzanne