Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Creating a registry for reserved labels.

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Fri, 28 September 2018 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8EFC12F1A2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 J_W00TF0Nuk0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEC81127B92 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:20:32 -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 15.0.1367.3; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:20:31 -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 15.00.1367.000; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:20:30 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Re: [DNSOP] Creating a registry for reserved labels.
Thread-Index: AQHUVni1VlSCGHsf5Uq85NA0Tp61D6UGc3eAgAAGwACAAB9gAA==
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 20:20:29 +0000
Message-ID: <8544E846-78BD-4A3E-AB8E-8E1CDF04F7B6@icann.org>
References: <E0EBE5CE-5EC9-4ACD-BB69-C44B48DE43EA@icann.org> <7189BAF5-5AE5-45D6-9DAA-32C77E6C4211@apnic.net> <CAHw9_iJARsLKydiUb71+m3oF40k8eDji7dq2-TPvgcmbuuwrqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iJARsLKydiUb71+m3oF40k8eDji7dq2-TPvgcmbuuwrqA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8FA8748B-1A95-4AF4-88DD-F5280CA13805"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SfxyQX3YpAV-8xYWTwybQRvRTqA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Creating a registry for reserved labels.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 28 Sep 2018 20:20:35 -0000

On Sep 28, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> 
> We are adding (at the IESG's request) this (thanks to Terry for the text):
> ------
> "The special labels defined here came after extensive IETF evaluation
> of alternative patterns and approaches in light of the desired
> behaviour (sections 2.1, 2.2) within the resolver and the applied
> testing methodology (section 4.3).  As one example, underscore
> prefixed names were rejected because a number of browsers / operating
> systems would not fetch them, as they were not viewed as valid
> "hostnames". Attention was paid to the consideration of local
> collisions and the reservation of Left Hand Side (LHS) labels of a
> domain name, and the impact upon zone operators who might desire to
> use a similarly constructed hostname for a purpose other than as
> documented here.  Therefore, it is important to note that the
> reservation of the labels in this manner is definitely not considered
> "best practice".
> -----
> to the KSK document. The registry creation document should contain some language explaining that this sort of thing is a poor design-pattern[0], and should be avoided unless there is a really good reason....

I agree that new document that I volunteered to edit (are there any offers of co-editors?) should have similar language. I fully disagree that it is a "poor design pattern". It has been shown over and over to work well.

> but, if people do things like this, having them documented is better than astonishment.

Yes, that's the reason for the registry.

--Paul Hoffman