Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Stephane Bortzmeyer <> Wed, 08 February 2017 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FB0129810 for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 01:16:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5PXO_yWMUzGT for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 01:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C655A129614 for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 01:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C24A2806BD; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:16:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265232806B8; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:16:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0FA2B38027; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:15:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6F33B40337; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:15:36 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:15:36 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
To: Suzanne Woolf <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.0
X-Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-2-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.1)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:16:11 -0000

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:04:05PM -0500,
 Suzanne Woolf <> wrote 
 a message of 82 lines which said:

> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for:
> "Special-Use Names Problem Statement"

I've read draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02

I'm not convinced that there really is a "problem" with special-use
domain names and I would like to see some sort of applicability
statement saying (I send text...) "The issues listed here should not
be interpreted as indicating that special-use domain names should not
be reserved and used. While we may see one day a RFC 6761bis, in the
mean time, the process it describes should continue to be open and

Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real
technical problem with RFC 6761, the lack of a formal language for the
registry, thus preventing the programmers of resolving software to
compile automatically the code for the various cases.

I send text: after the paragraph "When a special-use Domain Name is
added to the special-use Domain Names registry, not all software that
processes such names will understand the special use of that name.", add:

  o This problem is made more difficult by the fact that there is no
  formal language for the registry. The list of SUDN with their
  specific requirments is not machine-readable. As a result, software
  developers who write resolving code have to translate the registry
  by hand into their code, a process which is painful, brittle, and
  unlikely to be repeated often (thus making software obsolete with
  respect to the registry).

Now, the details:

> Both ICANN and the IETF have the authority and formal processes to
> assign names from the pool of unused names, but no formal
> coordination process exists.

As I said several times, this is not true
<> Was this mechanism used
once for special-use domain names? What was the result?

> Organizations do in fact sometimes commandeer subsets of the
> namespace. Reasons a third party might do this include:

There are others:

* Intended use is covered by gTLD process, don't recognize ICANN's
right to block these TLD

* Intended use is covered by some IETF process, but the process is too
long, too bureaucratice and too incertain [before you jump on this
one, remember IETF never replied to requests to reserve names like
.bit or .zkey]

> the fact of its unilateral use by the TOR project without following
> the RFC 6761 process

This is ridiculous, .onion was used since 2004
<> and
RFC 6761 was published in 2013.