IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld next steps

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Wed, 08 March 2023 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 7B699C152EE7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 17:57:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OgdOYYdnulB1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 17:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa2.lax.icann.org (ppa2.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.77]) (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 AEE5FC151B0A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 17:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa2.lax.icann.org (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTPS id 3281urNe003991 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 8 Mar 2023 01:56:54 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.25; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 17:56:52 -0800
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.1118.025; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 17:56:52 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld next steps
Thread-Index: AQHZUWFAieedxA6bxUCAlGiLPLUoUQ==
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 01:56:52 +0000
Message-ID: <B2C185B2-6DF4-4B7E-8667-FC361CAC490E@icann.org>
References: <BY5PR11MB419690E9C767816AB4A0CB4FB5B79@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <42DD4138-2596-4DF7-BA0B-B64E7CE67AAE@virtualized.org> <sny4YxiPNJ_UMwBbRSihZAUwVdUZzmtTD_UdDrT65ln5TX3fm-MoEGcGnTvUfCeQ9bM-yi8zDwU5XG2UWuB1CuxqB6thEeIq8svDL5AIu1Y=@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <sny4YxiPNJ_UMwBbRSihZAUwVdUZzmtTD_UdDrT65ln5TX3fm-MoEGcGnTvUfCeQ9bM-yi8zDwU5XG2UWuB1CuxqB6thEeIq8svDL5AIu1Y=@hopcount.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <57C305B1DA56064EA477F36786EE5721@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.942,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.170.22 definitions=2023-03-07_18,2023-03-07_01,2023-02-09_01
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/LOPSZu8eSBXYO3-bC6HZDW0D1ew>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld next steps
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 01:57:08 -0000

On Mar 7, 2023, at 3:48 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 15:56, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>> 4 weeks for ICANN (which? Organization, Board, Community, all 3?) to provide feedback? (That feels sort of like the ITU asking "the IETF" for feedback on an IP-related protocol document in 4 weeks.)
> 
> Did the IETF (also which?) provide feedback on this similar request for feedback?
> 
> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-procedure-for-selecting-a-top-level-domain-string-for-private-use-13-01-2023

IETF requests and ICANN requests are handled very differently due to very different communities and different structures for receiving comments.

> It seems like the answer is no.

Correct. This can be seen at <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-procedure-for-selecting-a-top-level-domain-string-for-private-use-13-01-2023/submissions>. It is not clear what the IETF leadership would want to say about how IANA chooses such a name.

> Perhaps it would be useful for someone to decide whether these ships are intentionally passing in the night or whether more attention to navigation is required.

1) The leadership of both were well aware of what the other was doing. Note that Warren Kumari is both on the IESG and one of the lead developers of SAC113.

2) The two topics are explicitly different: one is for a name that can be used in the DNS (SAC113) when the user wants a name that is not in the DNS root, the other is for a name that is not to be used in the DNS context (alt-tld) when the user wants a name that is not in the DNS root.

3) Literally the only failure case would be if the name chosen by IANA for SAC113 was "alt" because "alt" is not yet in the 6761 registry. That cannot happen because IANA is completely aware of the alt-tld draft and has followed its progression for years.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email