Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> Wed, 29 January 2014 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
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 0B6A01A021B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:45:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 mr8vmcIOsaQW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:45:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nox.guxx.net (nox.guxx.net [78.46.109.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCAE81A03D4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:45:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by nox.guxx.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1BD3CDB830E; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:45:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from porcupinetree.ddns.nominum.com (PorcupineTree.ddns.nominum.com [64.89.225.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nox.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE821DB811B; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:45:44 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <555B2F7B-7D29-43BC-AADC-1EA65A17DEF0@hopcount.ca>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:45:40 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EE6063EE-A69E-4460-91B4-862096A00F0F@fl1ger.de>
References: <20140129055438.2402.qmail@joyce.lan> <97E20887-2B9C-4EAD-826B-043306605F88@fl1ger.de> <72A3E4AE-F116-4496-BADB-5973DEC46598@vpnc.org> <C2A6625B-BEF7-41D6-B8BB-B870694CAFD9@fl1ger.de> <555B2F7B-7D29-43BC-AADC-1EA65A17DEF0@hopcount.ca>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
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: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:45:57 -0000

Moin!

On 29 Jan 2014, at 10:07, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>; wrote:
> A risk to the Internet as a whole is that a fragmented namespace (.LAN means something different in John's office than it does at the cafe next door; .HOME meaning something different to the thirty million subscribers of ISP X than it does to others) will restrict communication by name between endpoints on the Internet, and changes the fundamental assumptions on which protocols and applications rely to an extent that is potentially unbounded.
1. The fragmented name space is a reality and has been for some time (dns split horizon search on google reveals 500k pages)
2. If endpoints use proper globally registered DNS names they will be able to communicate. If they use something else the behaviour is undefined.
I think there is more value in thinking about how we can integrate local and global naming than in trying to protect people by not allowing something to not be registered in the global name space.

> This is the end-to-end principle wearing a DNS t-shirt (the IP t-shirt was all cut up by a hundred million NATs, and is no good when it's cold out).
I don't think the DNS t-shirt looks better.

> The trouble here is not recognising that namespace collisions are bad; it's (a) deciding where to draw the line between "bad" and "good enough" and (b) dealing with the political headaches of "use it, measure it, reserve it at the IETF" which costs $0 and "follow the ICANN new gTLD applicant guidebook" which costs substantially more.
I do recognise them. The data that we have shows that they exists. I just think that it is nothing the IETF should invest time in. While the IETF cost is significant lower than the ICANN cost I doubt that RFCs will get lawyers out of ICANNs back. I think the ship has sailed and it now is a political (layer 9) problem who can register what in the global DNS name space.

So long
-Ralf