IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Thu, 07 April 2016 01:20 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CC612D527 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=virtualized-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 gZ2DstVqhS87 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 63A9512D14E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id u206so66930251wme.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=virtualized-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=OJsNNmccvERQHOKZfi3L8nqizQU9Jmo+uevd+VnHVPQ=; b=0ge4dgEEe/b5FWckeqUECkaO1g7QLSRdkvLwZ0/8UxlO+vuo2/v/0EWt7TCbbBIQIh l6OQX9mf9UeYNC4UIi/JvIZOo2oMUuj44bv/pYbNmxKjRJvQX5z79C79F4f0N/DuFGyO rje6Gaf+AksKsFkQ5OUTcRklZnLd6Ee4+L3NPErx+aHAl3sQwiJkd2e4eRJB+etKeuT6 rxTiA9B77Aub4hC/OUZ5HGkaGcL6ANmDb4vpJ2K19m5P30HG+ufjm4zdTF3mhpGlDNF/ zaO5L2IdNqp300cWx+wEDgr1TwCNln7zlnqb1GX4zZB5ZcOfIP8OkzComJHV246BTQ78 IGrw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=OJsNNmccvERQHOKZfi3L8nqizQU9Jmo+uevd+VnHVPQ=; b=lBA4fH+IrTzzWtNvRyR1U66V7GisYeXKMVU2qKFQU/C9nTLqTet3enG9Q+/5xjRNnS GA/STe2wnMFCBNJ6T6SjIwaN6DFzwp0X/MlUkm3gouSS5AUwpOsL+I2GhwQivGxvmvvA vs38kNUiC2m2ZK8li0O9Skrtw0e9wg5E+bZ3bfrN2teBLxSBoz88Hetnu16zA0eUD+2R 4wpJkneUYMDcMmJpP+3ggGCBhgdDow+7HVjwnf5fHLdkeu6ybZlgKl7vDOVnmq3Fo8uK AeBtxXcdvuLH47bNAMYmQWXTSrCHkTKsTFVJu7ZI3f7NC7ATsYdnNhsCMMsbkjTfn2j1 MMDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKNAYvcYNIoFqB5ZEm1FApPkAKSYB873gS0VfjYsE16zp9NUv030f3XfFEnHq/czQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.218.145 with SMTP id r139mr27881686wmg.52.1459992003886; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-a2ab.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a2ab.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.162.171]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v6sm27418873wmv.16.2016.04.06.18.20.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_580E962F-40BB-4C24-B1A5-00830D1805ED"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <emc88ff7ca-67a6-4eec-85ac-9b2442ebf9b1@bodybag>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:19:58 -0300
Message-Id: <31B0EB50-A8EB-42DE-BDFE-CF0972A40C30@virtualized.org>
References: <emc88ff7ca-67a6-4eec-85ac-9b2442ebf9b1@bodybag>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/KsymaT6p9Nzzqv-vaouPoczJ0Bg>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 07 Apr 2016 01:20:07 -0000

Adrien,

> I think we still need to answer the question about whether DNS namespace should be polluted for non-DNS resolution.

I believe your question is wrong.

The "DNS namespace" can't be polluted for non-DNS resolution because the DNS namespace is, by definition, only comprised of names that can be resolved via the DNS.  The "Internet namespace" is larger than that.  Even before RFC 6761, there were names that should never hit the DNS, specified in RFCs 2606 and 1918. RFC 7686 added "onion". A number of folks want to add more.

In my view, the real question here is what is the distinguishing characteristic(s) and processes by which an "Internet name" is categorized as a "DNS name" (which, at least at the top level, presumably falls under ICANN community-defined policies) and those fall under a different categorization.

Regards,
-drc
(speaking only for myself)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email