Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

On 9/21/15, 16:36, "DNSOP on behalf of hellekin" <[e-mail]
on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA512
>
>On 09/21/2015 11:50 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> 
>> I think defining -whether- name.onion is a Domain Name will make us
>> re-think how Domain Names interoperate amongst protocols beyond the DN
>S.
>>
>
>Agreed, but why limit to .onion?  Can your example stretch to include
>.bit, .i2p, .gnu, .zkey, and why not .exit?

You tell me.  The draft is not necessarily comprehensive.  Examples are
not exhaustive lists.

The point of the draft is to move from a situation where we have a
hodgepodge of cases to one where we have a formal ontology.  From there,
the hope is that patterns will emerge that will increase determinism.

>In a recent private conversation it was suggested that as long as a
>domain cannot sell subdomains it could be interesting to consider
>(without affecting ICANN domain-name business).

This is a non-sequiter.  "Selling" is not one of the criteria.  OTOH,
whether names are centrally assigned (as in DNS) or uniquely spawned
(distributed hash tables) is a technical aspect, but even that doesn't
really matter - what matters is the method of converting the name into, as
appropriate, a location or other data value (key/cert for example).
(IMHO, just about any mention of ICANN is a red herring.)  The draft is
trying to forge a definition of Domain Names, with a better understanding
of how they function and interoperate amongst protocols.

>Earlier we've been discussing P2PNames and came to the conclusion that
>the term TLD should not be employed outside the DNS context, so I
>welcome your draft to clarify this aspect.

As mentioned in the draft, top-level names is defined very early on in the
evolution of the concept.  TLD has emerged, more so in the last 15 years,
to be a specific kind of entity within the management of DNS operations.

It is my suspicion/belief that the top-level name will retain special
status as we go on because - and this is belief talking and not anything
more mature - there needs to be some way to signal how the name "below"
(in the rooted tree sense) is resolved.  I.e., if I see "onion" I go to
Tor, "local" mDNS, a numeric value is treated as a literal or error, a
known DNS TLD to the DNS, and so on.  I'm not sure this observation will
be something that grows into the draft or not but is a central reason why
I think we have to start with a basic definition.

That list of examples can conceivably grow at the cost of complexifying[0]
software.

[0] yes, I know, not a word.