Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 21 May 2015 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348FE1A047A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5QiyRWXEcjSs for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F5701A0389 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 90336 invoked from network); 21 May 2015 18:06:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 21 May 2015 18:06:37 -0000
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:06:08 -0000
Message-ID: <20150521180608.71015.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9FBE3C74-F7B8-4ADC-8917-6BCBBC36A303@uniregistry.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NODYv1kqPDdWGLTcH9edre-U1L0>
Cc: fobispo@uniregistry.com
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:06:34 -0000

>They SHOULD choose a label that they expect to be unique and, ideally, descriptive.
>
>Is something that in reality won't happen, ...

Sure it will, for the same reason that the alt.* newsgroups worked and
continue to work.

Remember, this isn't the DNS.  The way you stake a claim to alt.foo is
to write software that implements whatever alt.foo is supposed to do
and get people to use it.  If two different people went to that effort
and found that they collided, that would be a huge pain for both, so
it's worth some effort to avoid that pain.  The idea of parking or
squatting on an alt.* name makes no sense.

To help avoid the pain, I think it would be swell to have informal
lists of the alt.* names, just as there are usenet servers with
informal lists of the alt.* newsgroups.  I would be happy to run such
a list with the clear understanding that the only rule for
registration is that you have to put something comprehensible in each
field of the form, and that multiple entries for the same name are
cheerfully accepted.  Maybe I would weed out the ones for projects
that appear to be dead, maybe not.

R's,
John