Re: [DNSOP] private-use in-meeting chat comments

Eric Orth <> Tue, 17 November 2020 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D0A3A1175 for <>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 23:21:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.589
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 JD3-vZvOEGFV for <>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 23:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 455BE3A1135 for <>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 23:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l1so22065522wrb.9 for <>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 23:21:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Db4UEjNssj15olkSbZJ8HkhQpIw38lH438eyIGtp+S0=; b=fAAZaaRevcdHav450+5FfZp+YfbQB0Cki62cYr6eChKy8gdfOnPytGeOChVZdSVUzc J772VuZ/WOD0lkeKdU6b0D/lcR9jg9twumP/Duoiq+ekq8cceUVVpeHAARUw/dd9+Hek LLhzUS+iIyoRSOEF14rh1k47ebn0jNvNtxWBXz/FA1r4kJOQXMjSVLN2i7wx79jAUgUs O0Eg9mwjJCLhUQb/L5eTyFqz0kezADFR1GFVjFJDoiIOoh4f5/8/df/H9bk23jxI7VP9 Q4xE51sWGDQwpj3OTHNmPH2UDsBp5qCyW7Mu8ZVrPUmBxoCpEl5OZwzw2f9KckUUi4Zi 51ow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Db4UEjNssj15olkSbZJ8HkhQpIw38lH438eyIGtp+S0=; b=r91uzy6Gc7HJjVvuKki42DkBWKkDmYn7w4cShhreWJtmtF6oOoPSpCZWldKYMl8YBr jTSmurNjBuXlY/1ZhnIMuskefufm/5JJOaptyiGGK05ligtsVvmaclTOqAHqOqUPKxMD mebaj0QEJO20v5pB/m4OEh5XVNjAfqCwATjdfcFFYvxuCRohSBjOO1xtYrcSzAt32a6w Z/rNSb0+dFq03Hgg6fSUufJi6mC76SQceZip/lq2XaLkm4kYkhheF5h5674LRShIp7ZO DiQt2QTFDjsIufjEiqwo4kLY5f7dLmYofQPwqDAu7MMTXo+kvB7mi57metX8JrgLaytv hirA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zdQlNDk9+8vdju5u6yNafVaKv772ER01n6dFlLkIjylAw2Y3A eDEeACGKdQED9wHv+RRu32G558LypAL7FOilYydCiA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqWKRiSzxqV6Nk90Awy6zDRj4LtQdajFQ1qK1r9WcHx+1leohvgSFWLz0kQPRJoPcT5u5ZJD1lYsC7axv3nTU=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4001:: with SMTP id n1mr16030069wrp.176.1605597664625; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 23:21:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Orth <>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 02:20:54 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian Dickson <>
Cc: " WG" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000743e2d05b448565b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] private-use in-meeting chat comments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 07:21:12 -0000 or similar seems like a good potential solution to any of
the usecases around such "magic" negotiated systems where the user isn't
going to need to type in or see the actual name.  By generating a guid, any
system could easily generate unique names without any registration.

But it doesn't do anything for usecases that want nice names for users to
directly see or enter.  Anything with a guid is unlikely to ever be
considered a "nice" name.  Is this a usecase that also needs to be solved,
or are nice names even more into the territory where the system should be
registering a name first?

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 1:57 AM Brian Dickson <>

> Comments made in the chat, about the private-use presentation/draft:
> Me:
> One potential approach is to say (in the RFC) that one of the two-letter
> reserved codes should avoid name collision by putting a collision-resistant
> second-level label, below .zz and above the private use usage (and use that
> particular two-letter code in that manner exclusively).
> E.g. whatever-i-want.guid-as-label-to-prevent-collisions.zz rather than
> whatever-i-want.zz
> Warren:
> @Brian: Yes, but as you know (being a registrar), people really want
> semantically meaningful names... People have seen using www.corp, not
> www.dfads3e4r34324rwefe.corp..
> Me:
> Correct, and I think possibly providing guidance that this private use
> SHOULD be generally limited to "magic" things like automation or
> automated/negotiated systems. The UI can/should hide the GUID component and
> possibly also the zz TLD
> Ben:
> That could be $, no need for .zz
> "" is not a thing. I'm just suggesting an adjustment to
> Brian's proposal.
> Me:
> That's a good idea, can be pursued independently of the private-use TLDs
> like .zz
> (possibly addressing different use cases?)
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list