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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 3/3/14, 9:25 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Warren makes a strong argument in favor of .alt I think.

yeah... anything that has the potential to result in additional leakage
seems like a recipe for additional pain.

> Another related aspect is that if something like onion.notreallydns.org
> is used, with notreallydns.org registered for the specific purpose of
> providing a home for one or more non-resolving dns-like names, it
> is very non-trivial to guarantee that whoever has registered the
> notreallydns.org name will continue paying the yearly fees forever. If
> the registration lapses, an attacker could become the new holder of the
> notreallydns.org domain and use it to snoop and/or serve malware...
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>  
> 
> Am Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:20:48 +0000
> schrieb Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>:
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26 Feb 2014, at 5:03, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <[e-mail]>,
>>>> David Conrad writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Stuart Cheshire <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> If we have *some* pseudo-TLDs reserved for local-use names,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would think =
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#User-assigned_code_element=
>>>>> s would be appropriate for this purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> -drc
>>>>
>>>> Whatever is used needs to be insecurely delegated so that in app
>>>> validation will work.
>>>
>>> I still don't see why we need a TLD, or a delegation/reservation
>>> under ARPA.
>>>
>>> There are many, many TLDs under which an application/protocol
>>> implementer can reserve some namespace for their exclusive use at
>>> low cost ($10/year, say). Why is this approach not preferred for a
>>> new application/protocol? It seems far simpler.
>>
>> Yes, and it is -- but it means that leakages hit more folk.
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps all that is missing is some guidance that says "you
>>> shouldn't hijack namespaces that you don't control, even for
>>> non-DNS applications; register a domain instead".
>>
>> Because for some things, people specifically do *not* want it to hit /
>> go through the DNS -- this is why they have done this, and *not* just
>> registered e.g onion.com...
>>
>> For example, I'm a  *huge* Justin Beiber fan. I, and a bunch of my
>> fellow closet Bieberites hang out on the-bieb-is-cool.onion. (you
>> don't really think we want everyone to know that we obsess over every
>> little antic, do you?)
>>
>> Last week I emailed my friend a link to
>> http://www.the-bieb-is-cool.onion/Justins_New_Shoes.html.
>> Unfortunately, he was just *so* excited to see that the Bieb has new
>> sneakers that he clicked on the link from his phone (which doesn't
>> have the ToR interceptor software installed). This, of course, means
>> that the "DNS like" name, which should not really be used in a DNS
>> context suddenly hit the DNS.  Only his recursive and the root saw
>> this, and that's embarrassing enough, thank you.
>>
>> This is bad enough, but if people built stuff like this under
>> .onion.eff.org (or foo.onion.arpa), there would now be many more
>> people in the list who knew our shameful little secret.
>>
>> Obviously this is a somewhat contrived example (after all, who
>> wouldn't want to make it widely known that they *love* Justin
>> Bieber!), but lets instead pretend I'm using an overlay network as a
>> political dissident, or to discuss my sexual orientation, or...
>>
>> This is some of the justification behind the .ALT TLD proposal
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00) -- create
>> a special label to be used to denote that this is not actually a name
>> in the DNS context. By reserving it as a special use name:
>> A: It creates a "safe" namespace, secure from collision for people to
>> root namespaces that have no meaning in a DNS context.
>> B: when one of these names *does* leak (as they will), iterative
>> resolvers will be authoritative, with an empty zone, so
>> the-bieb-is-cool.onion.alt only gets seen by the iterative and goes no
>> further.
>> C: When one does go further (as they will), the root can delegate to
>> AS112, while can squash it.
>> D: 4 years from now, when someone comes along and says "I created a
>> shiny new directory system. I used something that looks like DNS
>> names, and I placed it under .pony. Please reserve that for me" the
>> IESG can at least say "But we told you not to do that..." They can
>> also a: reserve it, b: not, or c: we can have another thread about
>> this all again, but now at least we can nod knowingly and feel all
>> superior...
>>
>> W
>> P.S: Note: I did *not* say what should happen with the current
>> pseudo-TLDs / colliding names. They can move under .ALT or they can
>> not. The IESG can reserve them, or not, or bury them in peat, or paint
>> them purple and dress them in wellies. I have views on what I think
>> makes sense, but that's a separate mail.....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Joe
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dn
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>