Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Warren Kumari <> Tue, 04 March 2014 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77E41A00F1 for <>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:17:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e2ifGH7YTphp for <>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:17:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D891A00B9 for <>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:17:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z12so5188529wgg.29 for <>; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 07:17:10 -0800 (PST)
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ca7pOCof7bbx4uQh8p38oEVWKYSsO42r6oloPmGep/w=; b=LyFyTfeBdBUIGvkCCH/fzoV4/ZWKPbd7DIx2dxxVuNeV1ZyKX9Tur1UrbA+Pk6uujv CfMtgckqlLAKqn9dCZ2Vz+ilbTkajSotQjq2ev+muWwBsKNQrZlGrzhn9Y8mJHt2QsTz k9W+823M7WTLC/FccEYFGjeSVUzfSNEInNbeemUk+liXfGCeEjUcgirWpM2R4J+Kep4f hb3mD0wcYafOTOpmGgWmkExIFmm4WP2BaotAHNSJfySlACvpFrb7e0VSUc7ebCA1nWYz xqzJoG1hTJrOGEBR09iodm1s9uA9fpgiddevy44gNYqE7mjGa3pYed8T1bpHLrVC6M7x /giw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmW8scwKKOLK3xJ1S7ptM/cS500Q2SXzmjdFKk205B4tzc9vo2gQ9sFnu0DwuMLbIKRJi69
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id s20mr181767wjq.54.1393946230461; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 07:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:17:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:370:0:71b5:430a:a6dc:91af]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20140129055438.2402.qmail@joyce.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20140303102535.6f276963@quill> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:17:10 +0000
Message-ID: <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
To: Joe Abley <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: joel jaeggli <>, Stuart Cheshire <>, " WG" <>, David Conrad <>, Norbert Bollow <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:17:17 -0000

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Warren Kumari <> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Joe Abley <> wrote:
>> On 3 Mar 2014, at 14:19, Warren Kumari <> wrote:
>>>   3.  The root zone nameservers should either return NXDOMAIN
>>>       responses, or the ALT TLD should be delegated to "new style"
>>>       AS112 nameservers.  (TODO(WK): WK, JA, BD to revive AS112 /
>>>       AS112-bis).
>> New-style AS112 proposes redirection to an empty zone rather than delegation.
>> There's no machinery currently available to deploy a DNAME in the root zone, as far as I know. Since the IANA uses EPP to submit change requests to Verisign for implementation, and since the implementation ("RZM") has not suffered from rapid development in the past, I suspect (pragmatically speaking) this is a non-starter.
>> Delegation of ALT from the root zone seems likely to be interpreted as a provocative end-run around the new gTLD process and seems likely to raise eyebrows, if not hairs on the backs of necks.
> Yes. Which is why I think that some of this involves us[0] talking to
> ICANN and explaining the reason / purpose for ALT, and playing nice.
> Explaining that this is not usable as a further delegation (you cannot
> register a usable *DNS* name under this), and it should (hopefully)
> stop people "squatting" on labels that might otherwise be available as
> future TLDs should help ease over some of the uneasiness.  Basically
> saying "There's an upcoming problem over here. Here's a mitigation
> option, we'd like to do $foo." and not "Mine! Mine! We can do $foo and
> you can't stop us, mwahaahha".

Sorry all, I'm sitting in the DNSE BoF, got over excited and clicked
send before I was really finished.

I think that the "to delegate or not delegate" bit is simply a detail
/ optimization. We also don't need to, and shouldn't go into all the
discussions about who has the right to do this, who gave them the
right, which side they crack the egg on, what size cookies they serve,
Let's figure out what the right answers are, and then figure out how
(and if) we get there from here.


> W
> [0]: Read: The IETF ICANN Liaison / someone involved in both communities.
>> I don't see an obvious path forward here. We are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.
>> Joe