Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 30 September 2016 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 CEACD12B049 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.322
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 vKiY1IyIpN8g for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B5E512B046 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3slbrL3ZW2z26w; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 05:04:18 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1475204658; bh=6RZvQAjB+/Q2T4rbrP/3jRmIpJYjqaBPrEzR5+Ho/TE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=YnfaCv2RiRbQQYUN4MMp6fy02VhXRVpDQd7jJL/HCO1nfYd/9DQrakDldZZVq588r ZXKyqiXCO3lnxHKtPQ1q/q5G5ABXn2M52B2wGZvZFnCIuikAV3HgKXUuR4G/nF0a0c /fUEfCV8YA0rn0cVNSLwhhHsbTPvqBqCZafeCl2A=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qBU4qKDyAkk7; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 05:04:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 05:04:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9A7225C835; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 9A7225C835
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8330040D3585; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iKS_BQUV1sJ2vm=CSvHNJ3jH6G8VJKN1kSbc78hauPraw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1609292250500.13311@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609292041280.86752@ary.qy> <CAKr6gn04Jj5ar2OhztH2uc4WpFZBZ=WKZdx-1ufdFMb9NAQupQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=zDBcbaPVi50dFJXVVSrsBuUrb52iBu4T76Y_zYuxFkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=5kAb20mGLJPmmuQCL6ta9aJn3uEdVv=gVgG9erQoKkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1km66hoc7VFPvaHi4Sc0WuQxZFtQUPjLjK_Sj6qAtZ5UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1keNUiDAUuVn97XLb3W6oH7zdZhMeNbg3h-O892+acPVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iKS_BQUV1sJ2vm=CSvHNJ3jH6G8VJKN1kSbc78hauPraw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/T5zYxq-urN8nIrMOYB6La1pOVDM>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 30 Sep 2016 03:04:25 -0000

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Warren Kumari wrote:

> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>
>       So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, this discussion is why.  You are
>       both taking past reach other because you are looking at only the part of the problem you care about.
> 
> ... and why we need a Special Use Names problem statement, and not just a RFC6761 problem statement. This problem is
> bigger than just 6761...

I still do not see that. Without 6761, if anyone wants to ask for a TLD,
whether to delegate or never delegate, we (IETF) can say: That is
outside the area of our expertise - you must go to ICANN.

ICANN already has a blacklist of unsafe domains. IETF can advise them
on that list if needed.

I don't think at this point either ICANN or IETF would want to add TLDs
to the unsafe list. If at this point someone is still squatting domain
names, they get what they deserve. And all the known security risky
domains (as a result of decades of use of unqualified domain names)
are already known at ICANN, and they won't assign these. People creating
new ones are also going against the long standing don't squat advise,
and need no further protection from their own foot bullets.

So that brings the problem statement to:

 	IETF had the power to allocate or ban domain names based on the
 	Special Names RFC-6761. IETF no longer wants that power.

And the solution for that is a 6761bis document that confirms this.

Paul