[DNSOP] Fwd: moving forward on special use names

william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> Mon, 19 September 2016 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B43312B4DC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dnjq7VnRi2pM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (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 2BB7712B006 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id r192so81348041ita.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=g8pYgozSbMwIHJSH8nC9rUmWpuftqjt71YFHo/cujiA=; b=hnrOj7mPM4aWAAfvGrTzWx5mEX7FG9UXL+0zhJKEtG+OmwlQW5ZsfeNcS20Pa+Et6X YcGzL8VUJ+QMqu3l8s8IJTswNU49+MtboV4M/g0PRHLRr0rqu+lhNPg9yl9IxWxQ0NsO s4fOWKA9U2xHU1joE1td61EdR/JOOLEDqZYxDk/Atc0R75HS6lnQJw7Oj1kiX9rUSXWf u6qEVsd6ZTFGxeLlpurguAO3dBOVvDHJnh75x+eUiDsrMxRGanTDKVn6ukoZvnl/aSaJ idWW8OqmP6Bv7j8wyEOZW0BRaDUh+Ug1g3Ixt98c5ekJuvb9tz6VdhVjhIwVp3UM/D8J 6+Cg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=g8pYgozSbMwIHJSH8nC9rUmWpuftqjt71YFHo/cujiA=; b=IRkvObUnUh4RgImzmdDIFNND7c0aVla8bvj2irjLaNpaKG31ICM3vZZecUKJH/xVyw oKWo1jupboxCW+QuvhVxF23QX1ZBmLUEgDrlIV3+uzFHymejwRW7WN8of/Rh9FTtSFD5 fHqDJMmYOVEjqCU00ZRkpU8FmIkVS7jPk297yVGVR4Yb0JG0T62AME99Y1uAS/tk5NNp y5lEBtfN8lSfDd5UpL1cvWQ3s05sIT6v9pLxfHxPOb2h95Nt9iDGGFg5hmz7j0PnVJe+ yukMFrV9/x+tNNIt9aAovIauEgAGFBEl+Wb7YahhFKWWh9BBojrIaJjW/NuTm0cj3GKl GyDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwPI/rJuWav31iMg62pGde/ksLszloUfYIvuGXi7tLovpjN/+Ng9WbpgyDIMm2KBKJbGTlMmaL+xyFgtlw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h124mr284833ith.89.1474320897347; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACfw2hgH=iWT7YZNoNEqV0cw3EXCVpLWoAPGnqqqF1jfgfweUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8f5eb481-c8e9-cdbe-a9d1-3390053c5c13@acm.org> <20160918211028.78666.qmail@ary.lan> <CACfw2hgH=iWT7YZNoNEqV0cw3EXCVpLWoAPGnqqqF1jfgfweUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:34:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CACfw2hidvQwTnYoKKg8eKN7sDtnNYmsePEMod2O27MHJE2G_-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143ee8e5f16ce053ce3158f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MGYcnaRwHJkiGI6ABRJiG_PW72A>
Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: moving forward on special use names
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: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:35:00 -0000

maybe others would be interested.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>

I'm liking Johns approach - There is not a technical solution to a policy
or political problem.   Documenting known ways in which people are using
DNS and DNS-like naming systems might be very useful.   Of course such a
document would benefit greatly from a companion document that defined the
"proper" or "correct" use of the DNS...   If you don't know what is
allowed, then knowing what is out of bounds is very hard indeed.

As constituted, the DNS is made up of three fundamental components, an
ephemeral namespace, servers which publish parts of that namespace, and
resolvers which query the servers about the namespace.  The second and
third components use a specific suite of protocols to ask/answer questions
about the namespace.  Usually this is what people in the IETF refer to as
"the DNS".   Some groups reuse the namespace, but use different protocols,
 some use the protocols, but not the namespace.

Are all of these DNS?  Any of them DNS?  if not, why not?


On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:10 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> >On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> >> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask
> >> the WG to choose.
> The more I think about it, the more I think that they're both too
> long, and we'd be better off with a one or two sentence description of
> what we're trying to do, perhaps along these lines:
>   * Describe how and when to recognize domain names that are handled
>   in ways other than the DNS.  (That's mDNS and .onion)
> or
>   * Describe how and when to recognize domain names that should not
>   be delegated in the DNS. (That's the toxic waste.)
> or maybe something else, so long as it's short.
> Also, FYI:
> >> 4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS ...
> >This study is from before the new gTLD program.  The assumption in the
> >report need to be tested against what actually happened in the round of
> >new gTLDs before it can be included as part of the fact basis for this
> >work.  We also need information on the degree of success that the
> >various mitigation strategies had in overcoming possible problems to
> >have a full picture of the problem as it has been shown in practice.
> At a meeting a couple of weeks ago, I believe that someone said that
> the junk traffic at the roots for each of .corp, .home and .mail still
> greatly exceeds all of the traffic for the new gTLDs.  So I think it's
> safe to say none of the mitigation strategies have worked.
> The wildcard and such are clever, but none of the domains
> that have been delegated had significant collision issues to start
> with so it's hard to argue they've been effective.
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop