Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

["Adrien de Croy" <[e-mail]>]

------ Original Message ------
From: "David Conrad" <[e-mail]>
To: "Philip Homburg" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Sent: 8/04/2016 12:38:26 a.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

>Philip,
>
>On Apr 7, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Philip Homburg <[e-mail]> 
>wrote:
>>  However, having lived through a period where many different naming 
>>systems where
>>  use in parallel and seeing what benefits it brought to have to 
>>consider just DNS,
>>  I think a model where IETF and ICANN actively control the consistency 
>>of the
>>  internet name space is best.
>
>I do not believe IETF or ICANN have that level of control. The Internet 
>is known for "permissionless innovation" for a reason.
>
>>  I have created naming systems myself. And there are many reasons to 
>>dislike
>>  DNS and do something different.
>
>Right.
>
>>  But ultimately, for the stability of the internet, it is best to not 
>>do that.
>>  Write some experimental code, write a few papers and be done with it. 
>>Then,
>>  if you still care about the problem, work within the IETF to improve 
>>DNS.
>
>I believe the point of the special use registry is that these are 
>protocols that are not DNS and have no interest in being in the DNS, 
>but which make use of domain name conventions.  The alternative to the 
>special use registry is not that such names won't exist, rather it is 
>that the names will collide with names in the DNS.
>
>
>

the question is whether we should fundamentally change the domain name 
system to accommodate this or not.  My position is we should not.

Just because TOR asks for .onion doesn't mean it should be given it.

I understand the IETF is supposed to obtain consensus, but I didn't see 
anything in http WG on this until after the fact.  Special use names has 
wide-ranging repercussions.

If an author of a product chooses to devise a new non-dns resolution 
mechanism, and use names that are confusingly similar to domain names, 
and use names that may be issued by ICANN in the DNS, then I'm sorry but 
they need to look for an alternative technical solution.  Not make 
everyone else in the world change to suit them.

Regards

Adrien


>
>
>Regards,
>-drc
>(speaking only for myself)
>