Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

George Michaelson <> Fri, 30 September 2016 01:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AED12B09C for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.907
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ujE5v0rlaVEX for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AA3412B012 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n13so81372383uaa.3 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=flDKw2wIaJLClaRn/FVFN3+2OCbcKN0DDIJilRUzmgc=; b=moVVJHe4dTaP9Ys2zmw4ofIc14I5hOjHT/fKrjyljgusddM/rvIp1wv8glJjpgzfO8 Qkj7YMcRQqxa8BJ2Mu6NHboi3adwvcPtB6mXXpn/VI8k78vTePW8I4klY0o/Z4EYwcVE hcZFv87pPEl2Xj8ItKBQWVHEfLCpge0zrU9ZLEc+NiI+WuAytueHymrZhyH/dIunpRpp v7Z+20fRmo1o9Q+jEaaem0myIJE5J/1MKV2aI4hMI51dYLd7MIkYSK4vjJgMQO3wBCNn NecjxJrwZR5ra5Z1VHPTA4mHqIXFdi9nBKfEOsTym/3m7AjQPMMO27Eza3ho0I/FP0mX tXzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=flDKw2wIaJLClaRn/FVFN3+2OCbcKN0DDIJilRUzmgc=; b=lc9ZrBYo/dHPmRoVnv2u9tAeKblvgSKpKww4FNlRFjI2KBslJ2p86uVqOoR1AjaCjs T6Qu45mRoQkeTTpzllogdOUz2TXvzQ4XPRdgTqwLFvHQPQlmHF1aD3LHt+hn7mS54oQA Of4Xt7vIdiCYPwSNw+mdVCoiXslfa8tcA7ui1izD8t7hBRC7dKVC9tTzBsf9Bek90p/q 4yp0pG6tWQs52zJRhKoNPDMkw+Zo7+SLjojeQd8+uabQHFPLRiXKpVx7Xaho++5lmY3D FSe1ToraELSYvlrtKp938mlOlWPreC170znMfQDn9xWFwFfqK43CDpB4t2+Pom91vTpk T7lA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rn71CWkwqV540l7tM3XOsY+TIVT8PIKNn7XhMlxHbQ5Y9RfF9ox2l/y7WYKntoMvyiBoDkElqb5PIR3lA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q25mr3595045uaa.49.1475197384297; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:e554:8678:891c:e3ed]
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609292041280.86752@ary.qy>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609292041280.86752@ary.qy>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:03:03 +1000
Message-ID: <>
To: John R Levine <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop WG <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
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: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:03:07 -0000

Thats precisely why its NOT a false analogy: the design model in the
IETF is that the value doesn't matter, but in the DNS, the design
model is "follow the money" and 6761 crosses the bars: it enables
people in tech-space, to reserve labels in meat-space.

We got it wrong. We should have encouraged s/w designers not to brand
their DNS breakout string early, but provided a mechanism to give them
a token under .arpa, or something else, pending a decision, and we
should have made it clear the specific string wasn't their chosing. If
they see inherent value in the string, then they immediately walked to
being an applicant in ICANN gTLD space: the technical merit argument
doesn't relate.

Sorry John, but to me its not a "false analogy" its exactly what I
meant. 6761 is a process fail.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:41 AM, John R Levine <> wrote:
>> The latter, is the decision-role of ICANN. Under advisement, yes.
>> respecting IETF process yes. But the mechanism as written in 6761
>> vests IETF with a process outcome which specifies where the label is,
>> and what value. Thats just wrong.
> For some version of wrong, I suppose, but it seems a false analogy to
> me.  Nobody cares if their new RRTYPE is number 666 or numbr 273, or
> what IP address range they get, but a lot of people care if their TLD
> or pseudo-TLD is .lksjdk or .money.
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list