Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

On 6/30/15, 11:18, "DNSOP on behalf of Andrew Sullivan"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>This is a different use of "positively|negatively registered" than I
>outlined.  The case that I was talking about I think _does_ have an RP
>for the negaitve registration.  But that registration is there to
>prevent delegation.  Another example of this is the controversial
>reservation practices in xxx and sucks: you pay your money for a
>registration to guarantee that the name will _not_ be delegated.

So this is about words - what you call a negative registration is a
registration nonetheless, with an responsible party.  If I want to
delegate a name that is registered "negatively", I can go to the
responsible person, trade with them and then get the name delegated so
long a all policies are followed.  It's like buying the house lot next to
yours to make sure no one builds on it.

But I don't think this is a significant point of contention.

>You're conflating "DNS name space" and "domain name space" again.

How can I not (conflate them)?  I don't follow you.

>I didn't say they're part of the DNS name space; and given what the
>top-level label onion. does, they can't possibly be.

I have some trouble parsing, let alone understanding, that sentence.
"They" in "they're part" refers to the names ending in "onion."?  From
what I understand that would be a $key.onion.  I don't grok how
$key.onion. "can't possibly be" a domain name given that "onion." is.  (Or
isn't, I'm just confused.)

>At the
>beginning, I claimed that the domain name space was all the logically
>possible domain names, not all the ones in fact possibly in the DNS.
>Under this definition, local. is part of the domain name space and not
>part of the DNS name space (because of local. being registered in the
>special use names registry).

Here my confusion is centered on "not all the ones in fact possibly in the
DNS."  Do you mean names of greater than 256 octets, etc., not possible
because they violate syntax rules?  Or...I don't follow.

I don't see that "local." is not part of the DNS name space.  It's in the
special-use domain name registry.  Perhaps it's confusing because RFC 6761
defines "Special-Use Domain Names" and not Special-Use Names.  From the
title, I assume that the list if objects are domain names that are part of
the DNS name space that are accorded special status for some reason.
Which fits "local."

>That's because you're assuming that the whois contains all
>registrations in the top-level name space.  I wish it were true that
>ICANN, in its role as steward of the root zone, registered things in
>the root whois that it was registering/reserving from allocation to
>others.  But it doesn't, for reasons known best to itself.  The AGB
>clearly reserves some names from use, which I think pretty plainly
>puts them into the DNS name space and outside of eligibility for other
>registration.  That is, I claim, a negative registration of the name.

Well, it's odder than that.  There is ICANN's WhoIs and IANA's WhoIs.  I
mentioned IANA's specifically for a reason.  And I'll defer to the comment
that WhoIs isn't totally representative of what's in the registration
database (anywhere, all the time).  I really don't know if there is a
formal listing of "IETF." as having any status in any register.  (Using
the dictionary definition of register as an official roll.)

What's "the AGB"?

>Are you arguing that is inadequate?  If so, a reason why would be nice.

>>Not programatically.  Code can't read RFC. ;)
>
>But it can implement one.

No, people can implement an RFC.  Perhaps this isn't a point that will go
far, but, DNS has defined "unknown types" which can future proof servers.
General apps don't have something like that.  I mean - if the app can ask
the registry for the names, it can react somehow (I won't expand here).

>I think this is a terrible confusion of URI schemes vs. name-space
>switches.  It's true that if you treat the URI as an unformatted
>string you can parse it this way; but there are already rules for
>that.  But I think anyway that's a distraction.  We don't need
>uri-schemes to creep into this.

That was partly mean as an example of how to separate namespaces.

After this exchange, I'm still confused - are Tor Identifiers domain name
or not?  Is there an intersection or not?  Or is it just a "they look the
same?"