Re: [DNSOP] Ed's comment s on Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Suzanne Woolf <> Thu, 16 February 2017 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E90129675 for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:23:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id spYdof7IjAFP for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E5BF129564 for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p22so22081495qka.0 for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:23:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=KAvZ94CoOtviTUg+DGNlN99+dmYXtP+Kb6boEvPi6Ek=; b=UA4uNubPsl6bRA7i/YQdRxI1V2d1hFkb4YelnKvBqviB1+lpQiOFi0yhVdKezERSgF 1yWQ7rkpkivYfeUPswmQy9ZJNsk29oAeRJQAGsUwdMD+sfF6A78rylHzdiWMAHmoSyje vszwzEJ9CHOV5CUUvaUNia6UmqHpsTr7eS96XgUZrSdanje9AVpIhEMbtkvGh1ANoMkV xTmGUU1e8PP+2puZ/xvPhnp+CBsQzvDQwPDy7T0EytRZsnyaQvnHzHZ8Fdi454lYrvsN mnmdoHskGEXfvtMqmsCtKQcf+jDGtm1aCeXeuCevvQAhkfW+Kf8zvFhxHxlwsMamtQwx KGSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=KAvZ94CoOtviTUg+DGNlN99+dmYXtP+Kb6boEvPi6Ek=; b=q36g4dkKGcfvyv5rD1TtngpGLTxdJoPkjTE7FvFPGD3aHmUuYeN/cvPiJTuQiZG+PY tWA6VTIFEp1YJZiVHMqSJLBOBYmyALYOJVZiMFxFR2Mw8Vdn8go8Cr1Wi9VLdhTPJmw0 2c9guayfnCH2gUOKEfrYNYWXD3gU7VUJDdOeMXtYzKDkzZUvcmY8yTUGZnF+bEq4MYVq asNpwLmSZ5tbTpwucSuOUK/MtJ2hsuEGS1HjmlH2XuOx//rC+bWRzK6zJ4SlMktC9qdv 1ANU+qdwCuXwL960HOgMhLO3vKLNl9lleruQwxmi5gOpF3hNKLeYferz6fpZ2bLkUMqT vl4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kc2/to/LX8UWY24s8tzo2Ox2gZEnU9iOrv/4J80Ho9wkYAXE2RSbn8+6SRI6IpyQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q130mr1665145qke.274.1487265812244; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:23:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c381:c20:89dd:b6a4:11d3:2d85? ([2601:181:c381:c20:89dd:b6a4:11d3:2d85]) by with ESMTPSA id c141sm4800017qkb.10.2017. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:23:31 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_77AD4484-117C-4A17-9CE7-0E36B2C8C38B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:23:29 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Russ Housley <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Edward Lewis <>, dnsop <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Ed's comment s on Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:23:35 -0000

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 11:46 AM, Russ Housley <> wrote:
> Ed:
>> #    Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for
>> #    special-use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding
>> #    to the registry, and made some suggestions about how that policy
>> #    might be implemented.  Since the publication of RFC 6761, the IETF
>> #    has been asked to designate several new special-use Domain Names in
>> #    this registry.  During the evaluation process for these special-use
>> It would be good to provide a list of requests for new special use names.
>> Especially for a problem statement, this provides a way to estimate the 
>> "size and shape" of the problem and the urgency.
> No matter how you count, the volume will remain small if this is done properly.  However, the special name requests can still be important and urgent.

I also note it’s fairly difficult to estimate. 

At one point DNSOP had been asked to consider several drafts asking for various things (and some asking for more than one name). We didn’t adopt the .home/.corp/.mail draft. The .onion request went to the IESG and eventual acceptance. We adopted the .alt draft because it claimed to solve a significant chunk of the problem, and then parked it pending agreement on what problem we actually have. The HOMENET WG currently has a draft requesting .homenet as both a special use name and a root zone entry.

All of the drafts besides those for .onion, .alt, and .homenet have expired, which tells us nothing about whether or how they might come back. There’s also limited empirical data about what names people are simply appropriating for uses outside of the global public DNS, or how widely used they might be; leaked traffic to large recursors and the root servers is probably a proxy for some of it but how much we don’t know.