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

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Fri, 18 September 2015 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
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 3F00E1AD362 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.431
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 l8GIp8Vvrrxd for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEDC01AD0D7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:48:13 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:48:13 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQ8hipdEo//bQ/vEaybYlWidLMPQ==
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:48:12 +0000
Message-ID: <D2218CAA.F270%edward.lewis@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.5.150821
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3525414487_3808182"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/QT5uaMzS8NC5Ttkkk53Bs4pj-k8>
Cc: "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:48:17 -0000

On 9/17/15, 17:03, "DNSOP on behalf of Darcy Kevin (FCA)"
<dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com> wrote:

>Ed,
>	I find the document useful, and illuminating, but that it suffers from
>one glaring omission -- no substantive discussion of the relationship
>between domain names and URIs (the related term "URN"[1] is mentioned in
>Section 1.2, but never expanded upon). To be sure, while the "Authority"
>component of a URI is not *always* based on a DNS name (or a "domain
>name", as distinguished in your Draft), it _usually_ is, and RFC 3986,
>aka STD 66, makes the relationship quite explicit:

Thanks.  I'm stuck in the 90's, what's that web thing?

Seriously, the pointers will help.

>"However, a globally scoped naming
>system, such as DNS fully qualified domain names, is necessary for
>URIs intended to have global scope. URI producers should use names
>that conform to the DNS syntax, even when use of DNS is not
>immediately apparent ..."
>
>So, names in URI "Authority"s should *look* like DNS-style FQDNs, even if
>some other "Authority" resolution-and/or-uniqueness-guaranteeing
>mechanism underpins the particular Scheme.

The issue that gets me here is the so-called .onion names and the
statement (which I've only seen in email) that the labels may exceed DNS
limits someday.  And this is probably why I waffled when digging into the
URI and Domain Names issue.

What I need to reconcile is - "yes" to what you quote and "but" he
descriptions of the Tor Project documents on how Onion routing avoids the
DNS while ... based on some "explicitly implicit" in-band signal.

>Since URIs are so commonplace in modern communication mechanisms
>(including one little app called web browsing :-), I think the tie-in
>between URIs and domain names should at least be mentioned in a
>comprehensive "domain names" document.
>
>														- Kevin
>
>[1] As per STD 66: "Future specifications and related documentation
>should use the general term 'URI' rather than the more restrictive terms
>'URL' and 'URN'".

Noted.  I've been confused on that myself, URN vs. URL.  At one time I was
scolded for using URL where URN was deemed more appropriate, but I suspect
that was a long time ago.